Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. George Thomas): beg to move

That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 4A, line 4, after 'Edinburgh' insert 'and, if it affects Northern Ireland, at an office in Belfast'.
Standing Order 27, line 40, after 'mile', insert' or of 1/50,000'.
Standing Order 39, leave out lines 5 to 14 and insert—
'(1) Of every bill, three at the Department of the Environment and at the Home Office, two at the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Trade and one at the Treasury, the Department of Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster';
Standing Order 39, line 41, at end insert '(9A) of every Bill extending to Northern Ireland at the Northern Ireland Office in Great George Street'.
Standing Order 220, line 33, after 'Treasury' insert 'and at the Department of the Environment'.
Appendix A, line 20, leave out 'clerks' and insert Officers'.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Glasshouse Sector

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the other EEC countries about assistance to glasshouse growers after June

Mr. Banks: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the other EEC partners on the problems facing glasshouse growers.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with the EEC over national aids to the glasshouse sector of the horticultural industry.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with his opposite numbers in the EEC countries about Community arrangements for the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry after June.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): We are awaiting proposals, which are expected very shortly, from the EEC Commission.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great disappointment which all glasshouse growers will feel at that thoroughly inadequate reply? Is he further aware of the reply which I received from Mr. Lardinois in the European Parliament in which he expressed extreme sympathy with the British glasshouse growers and undertook to approach the Minister personally on this subject? May I ask whether such an approach has been made by Mr. Lardinois and, if so. what was the result?

Mr. Strang: The on. Gentleman has raised a number of points, but his Question relates to proposals which we know the Commission will bring forward from


the end of June with regard to horticulture and especially glasshouse growers. The second point he raised related to a reply which I understand Mr. Lardinois gave him when he raised this matter with him. We have received no approach from Mr. Lardinois, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a decision which will be taken by the Government of this country on the basis of our own best interests.

Mr. Banks: When will the Minister show, by performance and not words, that he sincerely wishes to encourage the growth of home-grown food, and when will he recognise representations made by the glasshouse industry, in which I have an interest, and by the European Commission as my hon. Friend has intimated?

Mr. Strang: The Government have made it absolutely clear that they are committed to the continuance of a successful indigenous horticulture industry. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the aid which the Government moved quickly to grant last year in total compares favourably with the aid received by any other EEC country.

Mr. Latham: Will the Minister confirm that his deplorable decision not to extend the subsidy pending the EEC negotiations was motivated solely by energy-saving reasons rather than by any concern for British growers?

Mr. Strang: All Government decisions have to be taken on the basis of all factors affecting our national economy. This country has to adjust to the facts of life of high energy prices and very large oil imports.

Mr. Blaker: It is all very well for the Minister to repeat that the Government are dedicated to the survival of a viable glasshouse industry, but what the industry wants is action and not simply words. Will he make sure that the proposals which the Commission plans to bring forward come forward as rapidly as possible? Will he support the proposals of COPA for a continuing fuel subsidy on a degressive basis?

Mr. Strang: It would be quite inconsistent for the Government to support the COPA proposal for a degressive oil subsidy, having refused to extend the subsidy beyond 31st December 1974. I agree with

the hon. Gentleman that we wish the Commission to come forward quickly with its proposals, which are intended to have effect from 1st July this year. The future of our horticulture industry and the policies we pursue will depend to some extent on these proposals and on whether we remain a member of the European Community.

Mr. Newens: Does not my hon. Friend accept that our producers are at a disadvantage compared with their continental counterparts? While he is waiting for a decision to be reached, might not some producers go out of business and never be able to come back again? In these circumstances, is there not a necessity for immediate action to be taken? We cannot wait for that action until these discussions are concluded.

Mr. Strang: I recognise my hon. Friend's deep concern for the glasshouse growers in his constituency. I cannot accept that the assistance which we have provided is less favourable than that provided in other Community countries.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister consider setting up a British horticultural board with statutory powers to safeguard the interests of the producers of this country if that were their wish?

Mr. Strang: I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. There is still great scope for more co-operative marketing of horticultural produce in this country.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry is suffering from a major crisis mainly because of the Government's failure to act now? Has he noticed that, in referring to the British Government's refusal to continue the subsidy on oil, Mr. Lardinois in his reply said that he believed it was desirable that the British Government should make use of the authorisation? What will the Minister do about that? Does he realise that everyone is against the Government on this and that, if we are not careful, we shall suffer from a shortage of glasshouse produce later in the year?

Mr. Strang: I am not sure whether it is the Opposition's policy to take their lead on agriculture from Mr. Lardinois, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to take decisions on the


basis of our assessment of the national interest.

Mr. Latham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Horticulture

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about measures to assist horticulture.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the horticulture industry.

Mr. Strang: Our policy continues to be to encourage growers, principally through capital grants and the help available from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, to modernise and where appropriate expand their production.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the growers whom I have the honour to represent do not want to be featherbedded and that what they want is fair competition with other Europeans? Is the hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the new measures from the Community to come into effect at the end of June will provide our growers with fair competition, and will he explain why the fuel subsidy could not have been continued for the few months until the new measures become effective?

Mr. Strang: As I have explained, I cannot comment on the proposals from the Commission which are intended to have effect from Ist July without knowing what they are, just as the hon. Gentleman cannot comment on them without knowing what they are. I agree that we are against unfair competition in respect of glasshouse growers and other sections of agriculture, but our assistance compares favourably with that of other EEC countries. At the end of the day, as has always been the case, whether we are inside or outside the Community, the glasshouse growers will have to get their returns from the market place.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my hon. Friend aware that many growers in my constituency warmly welcomed the Government's introduction of the subsidy and

are bitterly disappointed that it has not been continued? They would echo the comment of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that they do not want to he subsidised or feather-bedded but want to be able to compete fairly with products from abroad that are subsidised. Does my hon. Friend believe that the glasshouse industry has a future, given the difficulties that it is facing and the bankruptcies that are likely to occur? Will he comment on the suggestion that is gaining currency in the EEC that grants should be paid to glasshouse growers so that they can close down production?

Mr. Strang: I understand the disappointment felt by my hon. Friend and his constituents at the Government's decision not to extend the subsidy. The subsidy was announced as being of a temporary nature and it is inevitable that there should be disappointment when it comes to an end. Certainly we see a future for the horticulture industry. My hon. Friend and his constituents will be encouraged by the present firming-up of tomato prices. If the present weather continues and the demand for salad continues to increase, prices will rise even further. We cannot comment on the Commission's proposals until they are made, but we understand that they might include the measure referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wells: When will the junior Minister grow up and learn that the horticulture industry comprises seven entirely separate sections? His replies to Questions Nos. 1 and 2 were given in two separate groups, but the answers we have received so far have all been in reply to Question No. 1. Will the hon. Gentleman please answer the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the other sectors of the horticulture industry? Will he please be a little more forthcoming and, instead of refusing invitations as he did in a letter to me this morning, go out and meet horticulturists and cease living in an ivory tower in Whitehall?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed that nearly all the supplementary qustions related to the glasshouse industry. That is why my answers related to that section of


the horticulture industry. The glasshouse sector and tomato-growing in particular constitute a small proportion of the total industry, and the industry as a whole will continue to benefit from the generous capital grants and from the improved advisory service which has been made available. As in the past, the industry will stand or fall on its own efforts.

Forestry

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends introducing in order to restore confidence in forestry.

Mr. Strang: None, although my right hon. Friends will naturally keep under review the workings of the new Dedication Scheme and other provisions introduced last year, as well as the effects of the taxation relief recently given in Section 9 of this year's Finance Act.

Mr. Hicks: Is the Minister aware that there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in the acreage of new trees planted this winter compared with 12 months ago? How does he reconcile that with his pledge to expand home forestry, particularly in view of the implications of capital transfer tax?

Mr. Strang: I am not sure whether the 40 per cent. reduction refers to total planting or solely to the private sector. Figures for the year ending 31st March are not yet available, but my right hon. Friend introduced a specific concession for private forestry.

Mr. MacCormick: Is the Minister aware that on the west coast of Scotland ordinary working people will lose their jobs through the Government's inability to appreciate the importance of forestry?

Mr. Strang: I totally reject the suggestion that the Government did not appreciate the importance of forestry. We want to see a large planting programme and we want to reverse the sharp and continuing decline in planting by the Forestry Commission which occurred under the previous Conservative Government.

Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation

Mr. Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of the Central

Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): Before I answer the Question, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on his appointment and promotion. I wish him well in his job.
I now reply to my hon. Friend. Yes, Sir. Over the years the council's advice has enabled co-operatives to become increasingly efficient, influential and financially strong, and hence to strengthen their production and marketing functions. This has benefited both their members and consumers.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that producers seemingly still do not like the idea of essentially co-operative efforts such as the Meat Marketing Board and the Fresh Vegetables Development Council? Against the background of his recent White Paper, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a further look at ways of strengthening the work of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation and encourage producers on a voluntary basis to improve their production and especially their marketing?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I accept that. Already the council has acted. A new agricultural marketing policy committee was set up last April. There are 16 development officers who specialise in different matters and who cover the whole range of farming activities. The council has been strengthened and I am very proud that I set it up.

Livestock

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the falling numbers of stock shown in the latest returns published by his Department, what plans he has to halt this trend in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him and other hon. Members on 20th March—[Vol. 888, c. 1845.]—and to last week's White Paper.

Mr. Mills: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is presiding over a


shrinking British agriculture industry? Does he realise that that is no good for the farmers, no good for the consumers and no good for the country? Will he bear in mind that the White Paper will be of no use unless it is backed up with firm, hard cash so as to get the increased production? Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves office, which obviously will not be very long now, will he reverse this downward trend? Is he aware that if he does not do so he will be known as the Minister who failed to safeguard the future of British agriculture for the consumer?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is always moaning about the industry and spreading gloom. He knows full well that I acted quickly and that the February price determinations were accepted by the farming community as reasonable and satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the downward trend to which he has referred occurred under the administration of which he was a junior Minister. I am seeking to reverse that trend, and after long discussions the White Paper has been accepted and blessed by the farmers'unions in principle.

Mr. Jopling: First, may I say how grateful I am for the kind remarks that the Minister made a few minutes ago. Is he aware that we wholeheartedly welcome the most important White Paper that was published last week? Does he understand that many of my hon. Friends and many people in the industry have reservations because we have heard similar expressions of desire by Labour Governments in the past which have not been backed by cash? Is he aware that I heard of one farmer saying that he regarded the White Paper as being rather similar to being invited out to dinner and then being given nothing to eat? Does he realise that the best thing he can do today for the industry, if he means what he says in the White Paper, is to give us a straight answer and to give us an absolute assurance that the cash will be found to implement the laudable targets that the Government have set themselves?

Mr. peart: First, I must say that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in his view of the history of agricultural support and the expansion programme. I can remember Tom Williams'expansion

programme of 1947. The resources were given and the national plan was a reasonable and sensible plan. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the White Paper in principle. Of course it is to be backed up by resources. That is a matter which will be finally decided. We must remember that there is to be a referendum. Given that situation, we—in the Community—will determine the parts of aid which will be given from FEOGA funds and other national funds. We must await that determination. We are, however, determined to accomplish our objectives.

Council of Ministers (Agriculture)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about his recent meeting with the other Ministers of Agriculture of the EEC.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about his recent meeting with other Ministers of Agriculture of the European Community.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his meeting with the EEC Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with Common Market Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Peart: On 15th April the Council of Agricultural Ministers found a solution to the current problems of the Community wine market. It also approved my request for an urgent reappraisal of the common fisheries policy to be undertaken in preparation for possible changes in the law of the sea following the current United Nations Conference. I have arranged for a copy of my statement to the Council on this to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister confirm that when the pound is slipping, as it has been this week after the Budget, the monetary compensation arrangements built into the CAP, although they present problems, substantially protect the British housewife from the rise in food prices which she would otherwise be suffering?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I accept that. I recognise how important they are to the consumer and, indeed, to our livestock industry as regards feed costs. I am most grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Jay: Now that we have a temporary deficiency payments system for beef to support the British farmer, may I ask whether any proposals were made at the meeting for ending the present EEC ban on all beef imports which is holding up the price unreasonably against the consumer?

Mr. Peart: I have raised this matter personally and I was given concessions affecting two smaller African countries. This matter has been urgently studied by the Management Committee and there will be a report. When we are discussing the stocktaking document I shall raise the matter again. I am glad that my right hon. Friend approves of the beef régime which I obtained. I can assure him that we shall hang on to it.

Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister agree that the agreement achieved at the conference on the wine surplus is an excellent example of how co-operation within the framework of the EEC can overcome difficulties such as surplus production of foodstuffs, and by so doing stabilise prices for the membership of the EEC?

Mr. Peart: I think that I broadly accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that the dispute between France and Italy, which emerged for reasons that all hon. Members will know, has been resolved. I hope that shows that we can do certain things of that nature ourselves.

Mr. John Evans: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he has had any discussions with his colleagues in the EEC about the problems facing British cane sugar workers? Is he aware that the workers in my constituency, whose jobs are now threatened by a glut of cheap continental sugar, cannot understand the situation in which only a few months ago their jobs were threatened because of a gross shortage of sugar? What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to bring about a satisfactory state of affairs for the cane sugar industry?

Mr. Peart: I thought that the fact that I was able to obtain subsidised sugar for

the benefit of the British housewife, through an assurance from Commissioner Lardinois, was an important concession that could be praised. I also thought that the long-term agreement, which in many ways was better than the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, was a decision which was warmly praised by the workers in the industry. I met the workers last week and explained the situation.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted that he is one of the Ministers who have decided to recommend a "Yes" vote in the referendum? Will he point to what are the most important reasons which led him to come to that decision?

Mr. Peart: The most important reason was that I was able to achieve success. I achieved certain matters on which I fought the election. I believe that it is necessary to face facts, to be honest and to take certain action.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a sensible solution to turn wine, which has been produced for human consumption, into industrial alcohol? What is the cost to the British taxpayer of that solution to the wine lake problem?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that one can disagree with distillation. That is a normal process in dealing with surpluses that occur for certain reasons. When good wine harvest occurs there is a surplus, and I would normally prefer to see that wine drunk. If my right hon. Friend wants to have a drink of wine with me afterwards, I shall be happy to join him.

Mr. Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the comment made last Saturday by the Vice-President of the NFU that two years in the EEC have proved beyond all doubt that the common agricultural policy can work in the best interests of both United Kingdom producers and consumers?

Mr. Peart: I read that report. I say to my hon. Friends who may be sceptics that I believe we have achieved all the basic principles on which we fought the election.

Mr. Marten: Will the Minister face the facts concerning the wine lake—namely, that if the Italians and the


French over-produce wine, the British taxpayer will have to pay for the privilege of turning that surplus wine into industrial alcohol, which in turn will compete with industrial alcohol produced in this country? Why should the British pay?

Mr. Peart: I believe it is right that when there is a Community decision, we as members of the Community should make our contribution. I can think of many examples where we have benefited. The sugar subsidy agreed by Commissioner Lardinois will benefit our consumers and is paid for by German and French taxpayers. We must recognise that we are in a club. If one disagrees with what is being done, that is a different matter.

Mr. Loyden: In regard to the sugar industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that he may have to look into the allegation that Tate and Lyle in Liverpool intends to become a packing and distribution agency and to pay much less regard to its refining responsibilities?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. I am meeting some of the leaders of the industry tomorrow. I take note of what by hon. Friend said, but from what I know of the matter I cannot accept his criticism.

Mr. Hooson: In view of the Minister's avowed intention to seek a guaranteed price for beef, which is extremely important to this country, what is the reaction of other Ministers in the Community to his suggestion that it should be a permanent feature? Secondly, has he raised the question of extending the system to sheep meat, which again is important for British farmers?

Mr. Peart: It has been argued by the French and Irish that there should be a sheep meat régime. I am sceptical about that proposal, and I should like to leave the situation as it is. In regard to the question of a guarantee or variable premium system, I believe that the system will be adopted even by other members of the Community. I believe that we should see how it works over a period of a year, at the end of which time the price mechanisms and structure can be examined by the Commission. I believe that we shall be able to convince the other Agriculture Ministers that it will be in

their interests to practise what we are doing.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the Government's belated interest in a common fisheries policy? What steps is he taking to make sure that the results of his discussions are known to Members of the House and to representatives of the industry? Will he accept that the new figures announced for herring quotas make it a matter of urgency for him to respond to Norway's initiative in negotiating for an exclusive 50-mile limit within the next six months?

Mr. Peart: It is not true that we are taking a belated interest in a common fisheries policy. I was critical of these matters on many occasions when Labour was in opposition and I asked for information on the subject. We must accept that when the Law of the Sea Conference has reported we may face a 200-mile economic zone. Inevitably, that will affect fishery limits. I do not accept that we should act immediately and unilaterally in respect of the 50-mile limit. Let us remember that Icelandic fishermen were condemned for doing just that.—[Interruption.] It is no good members of the Scottish National Party shouting at me. They know nothing about fishing. If they will look at the history of the matter and at the facts, they will see that I am right. I believe that we must act internationally. If somebody else acts unilaterally, we must of course be prepared to take action.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the common fisheries policy is in an almighty mess? Does he also agree that it was foisted upon us by the Conservative Government, who carried out no negotiations on this topic in the autumn of 1972? Is it not true that the Six then literally cooked up their fisheries policy in a few days before the treaty was signed? May we be assured that when my right hon. Friend returns after meeting his ministerial colleagues he will repeat the highly successful meeting which he had with the all-party fisheries committee in the House and that, indeed, we might have a seminar to give us some idea of what the common fisheries policy should be?

Mr. Peart: Of course I recognise the defects in this system, and my hon.


Friend knows that I have said this publicly. This is why I believe that in the ongoing business of the Community we must seek to re-adapt it. This was what I said last week in the Council of Ministers at Luxembourg. I shall be only too pleased to arrange with my hon. Friend a further meeting of the all-party fisheries committee. We had a very good meeting on the last occasion.

Mr. Sproat: Does the Minister accept that all responsible parliamentarians will agree that we should not take unilateral action, but does he at the same time agree that if the Law of the Sea Conference breaks up without agreement and other countries act unilaterally, we must move to protect British interests? Will he confirm that he made it clear to the EEC Ministers that there will be no question of full access to our beaches after 1982 by all other EEC fishing vessels?

Mr. Peart: I agree entirely with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I made my point of view quite clear in the Community the other day. I said that we must not be caught napping—nor, indeed, must Europe, because, of course, Europe is a great consumer of fish. Those countries which may want to act unilaterally should be reminded that their markets could be affected if they take such silly action.

Representative Rate

Mr. Freud: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes have occurred in the value of the "Representative Rate" since the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Peart: The United Kingdom representative rate, expressed in units of account per pound, was: 2.1644 from 1st February 1973 to 6th October 1974 and 2.0053 from 7th October 1974 to 2nd March 1975 and is now 1.96178.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister feel that it is wholly undesirable that British farmers should have to contend with the vagaries of the international exchange rate as well as with the Government and the weather? Will he seek to pursue a policy which ensures that future changes in the exchange rate are reflected in the value of the green pound?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when MCAs came into operation they were based on the fact that some currencies depreciated while others took another course of direction. We made two decisions. I am aware of the difficulties, but I believe that MCAs have brought considerable benefits to our consumers, and especially to livestock producers in respect of feed costs.

Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware at the severe damage, including loss of employment, inflicted on the meat-processing industry in Ulster by the arbitrary difference between the representative rate for the Republic and that for sterling? Does he realise that the attempt to put the matter right will impose a further burden on the British taxpayer?

Mr. Peart: I accept that there was a problem in Northern Ireland following the decision by the Eire Government. I carried out consultations with the Minister representing Northern Ireland and I also met the farmers in Northern Ireland on this matter. As a result we have recently announced payments to bacon curers in Northern Ireland as a means of maintaining throughput and also employment in the bacon-curing industry. I think that that is the right action to take.

Animal Exports

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents have been reported to him alleging cruelty to animals that have been exported for slaughter since the ban on live exports was lifted; and what action he has taken over such reports.

Mr. Strang: The only report we have received concerns the incident that was the subject of the television programme on 20th March and about which my right hon. Friend made a statement to the House on 11th April.—[Vol. 889, c. 1597.]

Mr. Boscawen: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but will he agree that he owes it to the livestock producers and to the public in general to assure them that he is keeping a lookout for abuses? When abuses occur, will he bring into play the full force of the law and the penalties which are available to deal with such abuses?

Mr. Strang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I assure him that the Government will make every effort to see that abuses do not occur.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the farmers were pleading for this export ban to be lifted they prayed in aid the future of that industry and the fact that exports were derisory? In view of the fact that the Government cannot control acts of cruelty in respect of animals exported to third countries, will my hon. Friend reconsider the decision to lift the ban?

Mr. Strang: I agree that it is possible to exaggerate the size of this trade. That incident, which was highlighted by the BBC film, represented a contravention of French law. A prosecution is to take place. We are not granting licences for the export of animals to third countries where we are not satisfied with their safety requirements.

Rabbits

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to control rabbits on commons and land owned by Government Departments.

Mr. Strang: As with all other properties, rabbit control on such land is a statutory responsibility of the occupier. Technical advice is available from my Department. which also undertakes control measures on a common if the responsible occupier cannot be identified and if neighbouring properties are at significant risk from rabbit infestation.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is there much encouragement in that answer to the farmer who is conscientiously dealing with his own rabbits only to find that his land is invaded by rabbits coming from common land or land under Government control?

Mr. Strang: I recognise the force of the hon. Gentleman's point. If he has one incident in mind, I shall be grateful if he will draw it to our attention. We shall take action if the owner of the common land is not facing up to his responsibilities.

Sugar Beet

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the continuing need for an increase in the beet acreage, he will make an immediate announcement about an increased price for beet for the current year.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): This is a matter for the British Sugar Corporation and the National Farmers'Union but I understand that the NFU and the BSC have just reached agreement on a formula for increasing the price paid to growers for their sugar beet and that details will be sent to growers very shortly.

Mr. MacGregor: Is the Minister aware that the present weather is creating havoc with the sowing of beet? In view of the need for the maximum uptake of the increased quota which his right hon. Friend negotiated, and bearing in mind that the increase in the sugar beet price negotiated at the February EEC Council of Ministers'meeting is a minimum and that there is still a 14 per cent. disparity between the price available to continental beet growers and United Kingdom beet growers, will the Minister consider taking steps, if the new price is insufficient, to make up that short-fall?

Mr. Bishop: I hope that the settlement by the BSC and the National Farmer's Union will reassure growers. The price for the 1975 returns is expected to be approximately double that paid in 1972.
With regard to the plantings, the EEC meeting and the basic quota, the BSC target acreage would have met the basic quota. Despite the recent had weather I am hopeful that they will not fall far short of the target.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister say what the increase is likely to be? If the matter has already been agreed, why cannot he say what the increase will be? Will he bear in mind the immense urgency of this matter? Farmers are making plans for planting sugar beet for this season.

Mr. Bishop: An agreement was reached by the NFU and the BSC. The indications are that that will afford the


assurance which is necessary to obtain the quota.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister review the decision taken by the previous Government to close down the sugar beet factory in Cupar, Fife, an enterprise which was profitable and which provided much employment for the local community? Will he tell the House whether that was part of a deal with the EEC? If so, will he join with the Scottish National Party in urging that a White Paper should be produced specifically on Scottish issues for the EEC referendum?

Mr. Bishop: With regard to the Irish situation, the Irish NFU said in a Press release—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong Question."] I do not know whether I should apologise to the hon. Lady for mistaking her accent. With regard to the Scottish situation, the position is that stated in the agreement between the BSC and the NFU.
As regards the sugar situation, we must pay the price set out in the agreement arranged by my right hon. Friend to ensure adequate sugar supplies. I am confident that the price obtained for the sugar beet growers will produce the result we want.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet representatives of the CBI and the TUC in order to discuss the social contract.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As I have told the House, I met representatives of the TUC at Monday's informal meeting of the TUC-Labour Party Liaison Committee. Further meetings between the Government and the TUC, and also with representatives of the CBI, will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister recognise, in view of the frightening unemployment figures announced today and the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, that he should arrange tripartite meetings with the representatives of the TUC and the CBI to tackle the problem of inflation, otherwise there will be even worse unemployment figures than those indicated by the Chancellor in his Budget speech?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the anxieties. The Chancellor and I regularly meet representatives of the CBI and the TUC at monthly NEDC meetings and on other occasions as may be necessary.
My right hon. Friend's speech last night, his Budget speech and my own warnings have emphasised that inflation is the father and mother of increased unemployment. With regard to the serious figures published today, over 90.000 of the people registered were students on vacation who have now substantially disappeared from the unemployment register, the numbers of which are accordingly falling again since the dates covered by what was published today.

Mr. Churchill: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's economic policies have put 200,000 people out of work or on short-time working in the North-West Region alone? How many more hundreds of thousands of people are to be thrown on the slag heap of unemployment before the Government moderate and modify their policies of deliberately creating unemployment in a vain effort to contain inflation?

The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman was elected last year there were over 2 million people unemployed as a result of the policies of the Conservative Government, of which he was a member, which their Front Bench defended and still defends, so far as I know. Concerning the increases since then, the country was warned before the February election to expect by last winter an even higher figure than that published today. That did not happen. However, we are doing everything within our power —and I should like the help of the Opposition sometimes—to solve these problems on a basis which is acceptable to all.

Mr. Weetch: Will my right hon. Friend ask the leaders of the TUC, when he next meets them. whether they have any ideas about a policy for settled wage differentials? In view of the fact that at least a subsidiary factor of some of the industrial trouble over the years has been that of wage differentials, will he ask the leaders of the TUC for their ideas so that they may be given constructive consideration by the House?

The Prime Minister: Over many years, under successive Governments, successive types of wage handling have been among the biggest problems, leading to leap-frogging and feelings of unfairness. That is still one of the big problems. We discussed this informally on Monday. I think I made it clear to the House on Tuesday that the proceedings on Monday were not a formal negotiation between the Government and the TUC, although representatives of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the National Executive were present. These matters have been taken up. It is my impression that these and other questions will be further considered by the TUC during the next month or two, because if it has any new guidance to offer that will have to be considered before Congress later in the year.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Prime Minister will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the Budget debate that there was a good deal of confusion about the social contract. In view of that and the serious nature of the situation that the Prime Minister has recognised, would it not be valuable in the interests of the whole country to agree to publish a White Paper on what has happened to the social contract, what is likely to happen and what the Government consider to be its future prospects?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was here on Tuesday. He may not know—I am sure he will have learned since—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spent three-quarters of an hour fully answering questions on that point. [Interruption.] At the risk of wearying the House, I could go over some of them. My right hon. Friend gave his reasons for the way in which both he and the Government have handled the matter in relation to commenting on particular wage settlements.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT

Mr Lane: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Employment.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Lane: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the Secretary of State's critics will wish him a quick and complete recovery from his operation? Nevertheless, in view of the extreme bias of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation and its ineffectiveness over salary and wage restraint, why does the Prime Minister expect his right hon. Friend to be any less of a failure in future?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with any of the hon. Gentleman's comments, except his very kind and gracious opening reference to my right hon. Friend's forthcoming operation in hospital next week.
My right hon. Friend took over from the worst industrial catastrophe that this country has seen since 1926. Even before the previous Government reached their consummation in that catastrophe, they had in 1972 produced a total loss of man-days through disputes of 24 million in a year—more than in the whole of the six years of the previous Labour Government. With that record, I should have thought that there would have been a little more, how shall I say, chaste approach by the hon. Gentleman. What appals me is that, from the look of the Opposition Front Bench, they stand by their three-day week and other policies which produced that loss of man-days in 1972.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention in his present post of the Secretary of State for Employment is indispensable or that someone of like spirit, should he decide that the job has become too burdensome, is indispensable, as is a full understanding between himself and the trade union movement, to the economic survival of Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I agree with what my hon. Friend said, except his suggestion of a possible replacement for my right hon. Friend. I am not looking for any replacement for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Prior: With the present situation facing the country, does the Prime Minister agree that it would be far better to seek the co-operation of this side of the House rather than to attack us for something which is totally untrue, as he knows only too well? In view of the


serious unemployment figures published today, will the Prime Minister give us his estimate of unemployment figures to the end of the year, bearing in mind that already the estimate made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago, like most of his estimates, is totally out of date?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's offer of co-operation. I look forward to considering how that might be made a reality. However, he will understand that, in relation to my earlier reply, I cannot erase the history of either 1972 or 1973 or the events of January and February 1974. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about 1975?"] The number of man-days lost through disputes in 1975 is the lowest for seven years. I should certainly be prepared to discuss with my right hon. Friend the possibility of some agreement between us as soon the the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded the leader of his party, who we know cannot be here this afternoon—

Hon. Members: Where is she?

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Lady is not earning her keep.

The Prime Minister: I have had a polite intimation from the right hon. Lady that she cannot be here. In fact, she has gone off to Turkey for the weekend with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nothing arises for me to deal with out of that situation. When she comes back, however, and we have a policy from the Opposition in due course, we can then discuss the right hon. Gentleman's offer.
Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's question about unemployment, I have already said that we were warned to expect the figure mentioned by the Chancellor much earlier—indeed, by this time. Therefore, we must all make an effort—I welcome the offer of co-operation now—to see that the figure is kept as low as possible. Indeed, in a few minutes'time the Opposition can tell us whether they agree with what we are proposing to do about British Leyland to avoid mass unemployment.

SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS

Mr. Sproat: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange a meeting with the Scottish TUC before the referendum.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir. I and a number of my senior colleagues had very full discussions with the STUC at the end of February.

Mr. Sproat: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following those discussions, the Scottish TUC has officially rejected the Budget, rejected his policy on the social contract, rejected his European policy and appointed its first Communist general secretary? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the STUC's incredibly short-sighted opposition to the efficient, streamlined and competitive Scottish steel industry, coupled with the Government's interference in and delaying of the BSC's proposals, will mean goodbye to steelmaking at Hunterston in the foreseeable future?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman read that very well. In fact, I regret some of decisions last week at the STUC conference. I do not accept many of its criticisms. I do not think that anything that happened at the STUC conference should give any happiness to the Conservative Party. I had constructive discussions with the general council, as did my right hon. Friends. Many have expressed anxiety in the first flush of the Budget, which was approved by the House last week. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was on the STUC side in the vote. There have been criticisms of these matters. I do not agree with the STUC's views on Europe and so on, but in a democratic country it is free to say these things and the hon. Gentleman is free to read out his prepared statement of what he thinks about them.

Mr. McElhone: As someone who was a guest of the STUC in Aberdeen last week, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the vast majority of Scottish trade unionists still believe in the social contract and that the STUC more than welcomed the £300,000 allocated to the Scottish Development Agency? Is he


also aware that, despite our present difficulties, the STUC still believes that a Labour Government and their policies, in the absence of any alternative policies from the Tories and the SNP, are the best policies for the people of Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for what he said but for the full report he gave me yesterday on the conference, where he represented Scottish Labour Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend certainly gave me a somewhat different account of the temper of the debates there from the one given by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that at the start of Question Time I asked what I think, in the interests of the nation, was a perfectly serious question: namely, whether it would be a good idea to have a White Paper on what has happened to the social contract and what is likely to happen in future? Everything that the Prime Minister said in various different answers since then seems to underline the value that such a proposal would have. As he did not answer that question at the start, may I come hack to it now? Will he consider the possibility of publishing such a White Paper? Would it not be of great help to the nation and certainly to this House?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In my reply to the right hon. Gentleman I referred to the full answers given by my right hon. Friend, and that is a perfectly usual and legitimate parliamentary practice. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have remembered what my right hon. Friend said—that is, if he was here. My right hon. Friend explained very fully to the House why it was not appropriate to publish regular reports case by case. He gave very good reasons why, because of the complication of some settlements, it is not possible to measure them in percentages, for example.
On the broader issue about a White Paper to set out the terms of the contract and not regular monthly reports, this is available to the House and has been for a very long time. It is a published document. If the right hon. Gentleman has not seen it, I shall be glad to send him a copy free of charge and without VAT.

Mr. David Steel: May I revert to the question about Scotland and the referendum? Will the Prime Minister tell us which Minister will be responsible for putting forward the Government's view on the advantages of Scottish membership of the EEC since his Secretary of State has joined an alliance with the SNP to oppose the Government's policy?

The Prime Minister: In the first place I repudiate the hon. Member's concluding words. A number of Ministers have been and will be speaking on this matter. I spoke in Aberdeen, in the very same city to which reference has been made, commending the Government's proposals at a meeting there. Others of my right hon. Friends will be going there and stating the Government's point of view. I do not think that the hon. Member will be disappointed. My one fear is that there will be such a cacophony of speeches on all sides that the country may get bored.

Mr. Cyril Smith: It was your idea to do it.

BRITISH LEYLAND MOTOR CORPORATION LIMITED

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about British Leyland.

Mr. Rost: Where is the Minister responsible?

The Prime Minister: This is a serious statement and it should not be trivialised by members of the Opposition.
The House will recall that on 18th December 1974 it gave approval for a guarantee to British Leyland's bankers for short-term working capital required over and above the then existing facilities while the company's longer-term investment requirements were examined.
In order that they should be comprehensively advised, the Government commissioned an expert overall assesment of British Leyland's present situation and future prospects covering all major aspects of the company's organisation and activities, under a team led by the Government's Industrial Adviser whom I appointed last year, Sir Don Ryder, and comprising Mr. R. A. Clark, the Deputy Chairman of Hill Samuel


and Company, Mr. S. J. Gillen, formerly Chairman and Chief Executive of Ford of Europe Inc., Mr. F. S. McWhirter, a senior partner of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, and Mr. C. H. Urwin, Assistant General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers'Union. To confirm the authority of this body, Mr. Clark is also Chairman of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and Mr. McWhirter and Mr. Urwin are two of its members.
The team undertook its task with great vigour and submitted its report to the Government on 26th March 1975. I am sure that the House would wish me to express its gratitude to Sir Don Ryder and his colleagues for the speed with which they completed their task and to pay a tribute to the willingness with which the company and its employees have co-operated with them. The House was warned that it would, of course, be necessary to delete before publication those sections of the team's report containing sensitive information of value to competitors at home and abroad. Copies of the abridged version of the report are now available in the Vote Office.
I do not intend to summarise the report in detail but I think the House will wish me to outline its principal recommendations and to give a firm view of the Government's proposals for the future of British Leyland. There will be an opportunity for debate on these and other issues later on when hon. Members have had time to study the report.
The report recommends that the vehicle production industry ought to remain an essential part of the United Kingdom economic base, and that British Leyland should, therefore, remain a major vehicle producer. But urgent action would have to be taken to remedy the weaknesses revealed in world markets. In order to bring this about the report proposes that there should be a capital investment programme leading to the introduction of new models and an immediate and massive programme to modernise plant and equipment. The report also says that the present organisational structure has harmful effects on the efficiency of British Leyland's operations and is likely to impede its future development. The report proposes that within the overall corporate

structure British Leyland's activities should be organised in four separate businesses dealing with cars, trucks and buses, special products and international activities. There would be the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility with the new structure from the chief executive of the corporation to the four managing directors of these main units. It recommends various measures to improve the efficiency of British Leyland's operations in, for example, its product range, marketing and its engineering and production facilities. It also recommends changes in British Leyland's top management but—and this is particularly re-assuring—commends the quality of British Leyland's second-rank management on whom a crucial responsibility will rest, following the restructuring of the company.
The report stresses that British Leyland's success would depend most of all on the skills, efforts and attitudes of its employees, and that there is an urgent need to improve industrial relations. More productive use must be made both of existing and of additional capital investment. There must be more realistic manning levels and more mobility and inter-changeability of labour.
The team proposes that the progress of the capital expenditure programme and the injection of new finance by the Government should be staged and that each stage should depend on a tangible contribution by the management and work force to the improvement of industrial relations and productivity. To this end a new structure of joint management and union councils, committees and conferences is suggested in which British Leyland's shop stewards, and particularly its senior shop stewards, will have a major rôle. As the report itself says
means must be found to take advantage of the ideas, enthusiasm and energy of British Leyland's workers in planning the future of the business on which their livelihood depends ".
The report estimates that the investment programme would cost about £1,500 million at constant prices over the next seven years. This is equivalent to £2,800 million on the Ryder team's assumptions about inflation. [Interruption.] It has not told me what kind of Government it expects for that period, Labour or Tory. The team considers that half this


money could be generated from within the company, but £1,400 million—also calculated on its estimate of current prices—would have to come from outside sources and £900 million of this would be required up to 1978, of which £200 million should be found by continuation of existing temporary borrowing facilities, £200 million by a new equity subscription, and £500 million by long-term loans. An estimated further £500 million in long-term loans would be needed in the period 1978 to 1982. The team concludes that the new equity subscription of £200 million should be by way of a rights issue underwritten by the Government. At the same time it proposes that the Government should offer to buy out existing shareholders at 10p per share. In addition, it proposes that as part of the financial reconstruction the Government should be prepared to provide the whole of the further £500 million to British Leyland between 1976 and 1978, should no part he available from other sources.
The Government accept the Ryder report as a basis of future policy towards British Leyland and have already started upon discussions with the board of British Leyland with the aim of putting these proposals into effect. The Government agree with the proposal that they should offer to buy out existing shareholders and underwrite a new rights issue. In this way the shareholders will be given a fair choice between selling their shares at 10p each or retaining them and, if they wish, taking an additional stake in the company at the same price. The Government also accept that they may be required to provide £500 million of extra capital to British Leyland between 1976–78 if none is available from other sources; the question of funds beyond that date will be a matter for later consideration. In return for this massive investment of public money, the Government intend that they should have a majority shareholding in the reconstructed company.
Meanwhile, British Leyland will need further working capital, and my right hon. Friend will shortly be laying before the House a draft order seeking authority for an increase of up to £50 million in the guarantees already approved by the House. At the same time he will inform the House about the Government's pro-

posals for providing the longer-term financial support, a substantial part of which will come from the provision already made in the Industry Act 1972 and in the Industry Bill now before the House. The Government will then introduce any legislation which may be necessary to give effect to these proposals.
I would like to make it clear from the outset that, following the initial injection of equity capital in 1975. the release of further stages of Government funding will be determined in the light of the contribution being made to the improvements in the performance of British Leyland by better industrial relations and higher productivity. This is a condition to which the Government attach great importance.
The company will, therefore, be required to put forward annual business plans before further funds are provided covering improvement in industrial relations and productivity and putting forward precise investment and operating programmes for specific Government approval within the new system of planning agreements. The Government-owned majority shareholding in British Leyland will come under the National Enterprise Board once this new body has been set up, and arrangements for scrutiny will be worked out with the board. The aim will be to satisfy the criteria for the provision of public funds on such a vast scale while at the same time allowing the company to operate on an effective commercial basis without day-to-day Government intervention.
The improvement in the company's performance will require the full co-operation of the work force. The trade unions have already been consulted in the preparation of the report, and the Government will expect the management of the company—the new management—to discuss with all employees arrangements for setting up the consultative machinery as recommended in the report. It will be the Government's objective to secure the joint effort of everyone involved in making a success of this new departure in the field of public ownership in manufacturing industry as part of the Government's broad industrial strategy.
The Government have not come lightly to these decisions: vast amounts of public money are involved, representing one of


the greatest single investments in manufacturing industry which any British Government have ever contemplated. There are bound to be great risks that in an industry where there is fierce competition, and at present over-capacity, even the best-founded forecasts will be proved wrong by events.
But the House should be in no doubt about the significance of this company to the national economy and the importance of putting it on to a sound basis. British Leyland is our biggest single exporter. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to take me seriously. We did not wish for this situation. The hon. Gentleman should not be frivolous about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Geton."] I am getting on.
Last year British Leyland's direct exports from this country amounted to almost £500 million. The company employs over 170,000 people directly in this country, and the livelihood of several hundred thousand more is dependent upon it. I must tell the House that in this decision a million jobs are at stake.
The choice before the Government was stark but unavoidable. If we had let events take their course and allowed the company to slide inevitably into receivership, or if we had permitted savage reductions in its size, so that its production would have been effectively confined to a specialised range of mainly luxury vehicles plus some buses and trucks, there would have been a major loss of confidence, at home and abroad, not only in British Leyland but in British industry as a whole.
There would have been, too, a risk of massive increases in imports and in redundancies on a very large scale, a good number of them in areas of high unemployment.
The choice facing the Government on receiving the Ryder Report, the choice now facing the House, is this. Is Britain to have a major indigenous automobile industry, or should we have decided that British Leyland could survive profitably on a diminished scale, selling up-market cars together with trucks and buses? Are we, through a lack of courage in responding to a tremendous and costly challenge, to endanger a million jobs, and at the same time to see a shrinkage of exports, and vastly greater imports for the home

market, which would be bound to affect our balance of payments disastrously?
The Government have decided that Britain must remain in the world league so far as a British-owned automobile industry is concerned.
We are giving British Leyland an opportunity, through this massive investment, to overcome the weaknesses of the past and to play its full part as a leader in world markets.
The Government have made their decision. It is now for Parliament.

Mr. Heseltine: May I say how much welcome the fact that the Prime Minister himself has made this important statement? Would I be right in assuming that he has done so under the guidelines he recently laid down for the transfer of ministerial responsibility, and that he can now confirm that in view of the aid he has made available to British Leyland there are no restrictions from the European Commission on the sort of support we can give under British industrial policy?
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that we shall need time to consider his statement and to see the Ryder Report, which we have not yet had a chance to see? Therefore, I ask him just four questions.
First, will the monitoring procedures be made public, and will the House receive details of the necessary assurances from the unions and management before the next tranche of £50 million to which the Prime Minister referred is made available to the company?
Secondly, does the Ryder Report include a long-term world market assessment to show how Britain is to earn a return from the investment?
Thirdly, what is the actual increase in public expenditure over the period covered by the expenditure White Paper and what compensating cuts will the Prime Minister now have to make?
Finally, what are the Ryder assumptions on inflation, and does the Prime Minister agree with them?

The Prime Minister: Before I answer the three serious questions among the four questions, I must refer to the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. The hon. Gentleman trivialises everything he


touches. This Ryder Report, this Leyland crisis, which is no doing of this Government—[Interruption.] The Opposition will find that one of the major factors was the effect on Leyland of the three day working week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is what I was told by Leyland. The Opposition may not like it, but they should take these matters more seriously. 
I made the statement because this is a transcendental question, affecting all Departments, and because Sir Don Ryder, whom I appointed, is the Industrial Adviser to the Government at No. 10.
Since the hon. Gentleman thought it relevant to raise these points, he must expect a little more. Even though the Leader of the Opposition is away today, the Deputy Leader is here and there are one or two serious figures on the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] I am answering a silly point made by the hon. Gentleman. I regret that the Deputy Leader did not respond, and I regret that he did not recognise that this is not a "lad's" job. It is a very major issue. Not only he but the Opposition have shown their frivolity this afternoon in their response to this report.
On the first question, the monitoring will be done by the National Enterprise Board, which will, of course, become the titular owner of the British Leyland majority share holding after the passage of the legislation before the House. It is making arrangements for the monitoring. It would be right that when it receives and considers the annual programme prospectuses of the company, its comments on these, which it will make to the Government, should also be made available to the House. The hon. Gentleman was on a good and serious point. [Interruption.] We discussed this before he asked the question which is why I knew the answer.
Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's second question, naturally the Ryder Report became available only a few days ago. He will find a serious treatment of the world market and the British market in it. The committee has taken a great deal of trouble with this. Its view is that we could, provided we could better guarantee delivery—this is not only a question of interruptions in working, it is very much a question of lack of

modern investment capacity—meet world orders, some of which are being turned away at the moment, and that we could get a higher proportion of the European market, certain parts of the Commonwealth market, and I certainly believe, as we have heard from recent missions, some Middle East markets for Land-Rovers and Range-Rovers as well as commercial vehicles. The Ryder Committee believes that we could have a much bigger market for the vehicle industry.
That is why we are confident that if the recommendations of the report are implemented it will lead to no lasting loss of job opportunities, and that the Leyland workforce at the end of the programme, in the early 1980s, will be as great as it is today but be producing much more productively and selling considerably more abroad. That is the basis of the report.
On the third question, part of this will come out of the existing Industry Act proposals. That is why I am able to promise an early debate on these matters. The House will be asked to approve an order covering the £50 million at an early date. So far as public expenditure is concerned, the Bill before the House, on which the hon. Member himself is working, provides for an allocation to the NEB. Should that, because of the enormous pre-emption by the Leyland crisis, be insufficient, the Government will not hesitate to come before the House to strengthen the funds of the NEB to make up for it. Some of it will come from loan capital, which might be raised in various ways. It is a little early at this stage to look ahead on this.
Finally, on the question about the Ryder assumptions on inflation, I would refer the hon. Member to the report by Sir Don Ryder. Despite the fact that the Opposition treat this as a political matter, he did not even forecast what sort of Government might be in power. If he had thought that the Tories were coming in, knowing that they regard inflation as no problem, he would have had to increase the percentage.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recommendations of the Ryder Report will be warmly welcomed in Coventry, the Midlands and elsewhere? In the meantime, and in the interests


of general confidence, will he make it clear that the company is not bankrupt and that its products. to which he did not refer, are absolutely first-class? Will he also undertake that the Government will underwrite, if necessary, the continuity of supplies from outside suppliers and the payment of outstanding loans?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. He represents a considerable number of Leyland employees, as do other hon. Members. I represent quite a lot, but nothing like as many as he does. I am sure that the Ryder recommendations will be welcomed by the employees at every level, including middle management, to whom I have referred and who now face a great challenge, to which I believe they are capable of responding.
The company is not bankrupt. However, within a matter of days there would have been no alternative—in spite of the Government's ploughing in of help last year and the promise to do more—of its going into liquidation or a receiver being appointed. I am sure that this is the last thing the whole House would have wished. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am interested to hear that response. I am quite sure that this would have been a situation which Labour Members and the Conservative Front Bench would have deplored. I notice that there is a silent response from the Opposition Front Bench.
There is great potential here. We believe that British Leyland can be one of the biggest and most successful industries on the basis not of restrictive production but of the whole range that it undertakes today, with new models. We are determined to ensure this, and also that employment will be as great as it is today, perhaps greater, at the end of the programme, but on the basis of much more output and many more exports.
I did not get a note of the hon. Member's third question.

Mr. Edelman: I am concerned that the continuity of supplies should be maintained to British Leyland by outside companies, which are concerned about British Leyland not being able to pay for its supplies. There might be an interruption, with disadvantages to the employees.

The Prime Minister: There is no question of that. That was ensured by what we did in the autumn and it should be further ensured by the further £50 million we are making available. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that British Leyland will be a continuing proposition and entity. The board is now considering its response to our proposals, about the Government's offer to take shares at lop a time and about the rights issue. I shall not go into all the complications. The House can work this out for itself. It is a very fair proposal. There is no question of the company being unable to meet its payments for essential supplies, raw materials and other costs during the period when the restructuring takes place.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Prime Minister has said that the legislation is now before Parliament. Does he agree that Parliament will be faced with the most acute problem of national industrial priorities owing to the vast capital requirement of British Leyland in relation to present national resources? In other words, if British Leyland's requirements are met in full, what will be left for the many other struggling industries? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, undertake to provide, in good time before the debate, a comprehensive public investment budget covering the whole industrial sector, so that there may be a proper context in which to consider the Ryder Report?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's point is perfectly fair. He is absolutely right that in terms of the allocation of funds which we are asking the House to approve, there will obviously be a very heavy pre-emption over coming years. [Interruption.] I have given the figures —I shall address myself to the hon. Gentleman through you, Mr. Speaker—of how much we shall need to provide in each year up to 1978 and our estimate thereafter. It is certainly a heavy preemption on the amount of funds available for industrial regeneration and saving jobs.
The hon Gentleman will be aware that sometimes one faces a crisis of this kind at short notice. The previous Conservative Government nationalised Rolls-Royce in a single day. We have had other problems, some of which have looked as though they might give us very heavy


expenditure requirements. One or two of those on which anxiety has been expressed now look like being solved indeed, by Sir Don Ryder and those working with him. Although it may be that money will be required, it is absolutely impossible in this situation to forecast the total requirement over the years either for job saving or for industrial regeneration. But Keynes said years ago that we must provide Government investment to save jobs. This, as some of us have argued—means that we, through the NEB, are ploughing investment where it is most needed—for jobs, for export and in the country's interest.

Mr. Carter: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement which confirmed that if the Government had not decided on this course of action the private sector would have stood idly by and watched not just the collapse of the industry but millions of people going into unemployment as a result. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that future investment plans, to which he has referred, will enable the company to expand its productive capacity and thereby meet the intense foreign competition it is currently facing. and that the trade unions will be involved in all those plans? Finally, what will be the position of Lord Stokes, John Barber and the rest of the current board within the context of the new arrangement?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. If we had not acted, this firm would very quickly have gone under or been only a shadow of its former self. It is a fact that the massive investment programme it requires would not have been possible from private sources. On a subject of this scale—and we remember one, the Rolls-Royce case—it must be Government intervention, or it means the whole business going under. Whatever happened with Rolls-Royce, hon. Members of the Opposition cannot claim that the problem could have been solved according to the canons of their philosophy. There was no alternative to what we are doing. If hon. Members oppose what we are doing, they are saying that they would have condemned I million to lose jobs. As far as this is concerned, the investment plan envisaged which means investment

expenditure in real terms of eight or nine times as much per annum into British Leyland than we have had over the past few years, is essential, as my hon. Friend has suggested, for the expansion of the corporation. A lot of the investment is not so much to expand capacity as to modernise capacity, because that is where so much British industry has fallen behind its competitors abroad.
Finally, with regard to the board, my hon. Friend will see the proposals in the Ryder Report. He is proposing that there should be a general change in the board because it is necessary to have the restructuring to which I have referred in my words on the Ryder Report.
Concerning Lord Stokes, I join with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to what Lord Stokes has achieved over the years. I believe—and I take my share of the responsibility—that the merger with BMH, as it turned out, proved to be very expensive, because the price paid for BMH was very much higher than was justified by the actual out-turn of the BMH component
Nevertheless, Lord Stokes has been a great leader of the firm and the industry. He has been particularly successful in his overseas visits and his ambassadorship, not only for Leyland but for British industry and our exports. I am very happy to feel that Lord Stokes will be willing to continue, I think, as an honorary president of the company, specialising in overseas visits. His ambassadorial role, which he has performed so well, will be welcomed, if not by the Opposition Front Bench with their twittering, by the export markets in which we hope to sell the cars.

Mr. Peter Walker: As the Prime Minister has said, this is one of the most major investments that has ever been made by a British Government. What are the Government's estimates as to the decreased exports and the increase in imports that would have taken place if this Government investment had not been made?
Secondly, as the Prime Minister has said that the top management of the company should be changed, is he certain that he has the available people to provide a better management in the future than in the past and, if so, will he tell us who they are?
Finally, did the Ryder Committee recommend that the Government should have the majority shareholding?

The Prime Minister: As regards the future management, yes, I am satisfied that there will be the right management here. I am not in a position to make announcements at present. The board has responsibilities in these matters. It is being extremely co-operative with Sir Don Ryder and his team and the Government. It would be premature for me to begin to make announcements. But it is not so much, perhaps, a question of better management. It is a question that the whole of British Leyland has been built up on a particular management philosophy, which the Ryder team and the Government think to be wrong. It needs fundamental restructuring, and we really need people in management who believe in that kind of restructuring—as a very wide sector of middle management there does, but not the top board.
I wish that I could give the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question because I am sure that he is on one of the most important questions which has to be decided. I shall see whether some kind of calculation could be made in addition to what he will find in the report. But in terms of recognising that this is Britain's major export of £500 million in value, if that or a substantial part of it were to be lost, the House can consider what would be involved in replacing it. It is a major supplier to the home market, which would have to be supplied from abroad with medium-sized and luxury cars and, above all, minis. The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger right on the situation.
As regards the other question, yes, this is the full implication of the Ryder Report, the sense of it. The recent Stock Exchange value has been about £40 million. We are talking about a Government injection of up to £1,400 million. Clearly, that should not be on the basis of having a tuppenny-ha'penny minority shareholding. The whole House must agree with that. This will come about in accordance with the Ryder recommendations, first, to the extent that existing shareholders accept the Government's offer of 10p a share for any shares they wish to sell; second, on the rights issue

underwritten by the Government. To the extent that the rights issue is not taken up in full by existing shareholders, the Government will take it up in full. Should that not give the majority participation which is absolutely necessary in our view, then when we come to the £500 million loan capital, part of that could be in the form of either equity or convertible stock. I am sure that the House will insist without exception on majority Government shareholding.

Mr. Atkinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in reality and over the first five years of the investment programme, this represents not so much an investment in British Leyland but an investment in the British machine tool manufacturing industry and in capital equipment manufacturing? Therefore, will he now announce that British manufacturers will have preference over anyone else in the world? Will he also now announce his support for British engineers and British capability in producing this capital equipment and declare that it is not our purpose to go abroad for the equipment that British Leyland now needs?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches an important point when he makes clear that the kind of figures we are talking about, not the £1,400 million of Government injection but the £2,800 million I referred to as being required, will provide a major boost to investment in machine tools, the electronics industry, the components industry and the rest. We know that owing to what has happened in past years and for all sorts of reasons our machine tool industry and other capital investment industries have been terribly depressed. At times when their products were needed they did not have the capacity to provide them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary for State for Industry has already told the House of some of his plans. We have had to deal with Alfred Herbert. There are other plans. It is certainly our hope that the maximum possible amount of orders will be placed with British industry. In its turn it will have to reorganise to meet the challenge which the Leyland investment programme presents to it, just as Leyland is having to reorganise.

Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that every forecast concerning the sale and production of cars worldwide in the next 10 years is lower than it has been in recent years? Will he also confirm that the palmy days of the motor industry are over and that this means, sadly, that there will inevitably be substantial redundancies? Would it not be better at the beginning of this venture to admit that frankly and say that there will be fewer employment opportunities in the motor industry in the future? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not now admit this frankly he will give credence to the view that this report is basically a political report, designed for politicians?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept what the hon. Member has said about the future of possible demand for automobiles. I would prefer to rely on the Ryder Report rather than on the hon. Member's gloomy prognostications, which would seem to be a prescription for doing nothing except allowing I million people to lose their jobs.

Mr. Baker: I did not say that.

The Prime Minister: If I were to accept the hon. Member's view, although I would rather accept Ryder, about general world demand I would certainly believe, as does the Ryder Committee, that we ought to be meeting a higher share of that world demand. All of us in different parts of the House can produce reasons why we think the British motor car industry has not been making the impact in world markets that it could. This report is designed above all to deal with that.
When the hon. Gentleman considers what he has said about the report being a political report for politicians—[Interruption.] That is what he said. When the hon. Gentleman considers that —we shall be happy if he wishes to qualify his statement—he ought to remember that the chairman of this inquiry was Sir Don Ryder. The members included the Chairman of Hill Samuel and Company—not noticeably a fully paid-up member of the Labour Party; indeed it makes regular contributions to the Tories—Mr. Gillen, formerly Chairman and Chief Executive of Ford of Europe, Mr. Mcwhirter, a senior partner

of Peat, Marwick and Mitchell and Company as well as Mr. Urwin, of the Transport and General Workers'Union, which does on the whole support us. In addition, Mr. Clark was appointed by the previous Government as Chairman of IDAB. In the light of that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to withdraw anything which might suggest that he was saying that this was a political report for politcal reasons.

Mr. Jay: On this occasion may I ask the Prime Minister also to pay tribute to the foresight of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) who, in his first Industry Act, so rightly pioneered the policy of rescuing important firms in this fashion?

The Prime Minister: That was absolutely right. A tribute to the right hon. Member is long overdue. The Industry Act, which is being invoked in this case and has had to be invoked in other emergency cases, is due in great measure to the right hon. Gentleman's foresight. That is why, with recent changes, he is in the dog-house on the back benches.

Mr. John Davies: Perhaps it might be remembered that the primary force of the Industry Act was as a regional weapon and as such it has proved effective. I hope it will prove to be so in the future. May I ask the Prime Minister whether his right hon. Friend the Chancellor took these figures into account in arriving at his assessment of public borrowing need? Secondly, will he please tell us whether in view of the extensive anticipatory comments in the Press it is his impression, as it is mine, that there was no leak of papers and that this has been an exercise in that unfortunate sport of kite-flying by the newspapers?

The Prime Minister: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Industry Act. The motivation for that Act, supported by all parties and going beyond anything that had been done previously, was regional. There are enormous regional implications in this whole question of the future of British Leyland. We are glad that while waiting for other legislation, we are able to use the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman commended to the House. When we think of Leyland's direct employment in Scotland, Wales, Merseyside


and other development areas we can see the relevance of the Act and we are glad to be able to invoke it.
To deal with the right hon. Gentleman's question about the public sector borrowing requirement, my right hon. Friend did take into account the likely requirements of Leyland. He already had the Ryder Report at the time he drew up his Budget Statement.
What was the right hon. Gentleman's last question?

Mr. John Davies: About the Press.

The Prime Minister: Oh, yes. Absolutely I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There was a certain degree of Press speculation but not very much. It was less than I would have expected. There were allegations of leaks but as far as we can tell there were no leaks. When the House reads the Ryder Report. I think it will agree with that assessment. I believe that some of the evidence given to the Ryder inquiry, including some evidence given by various sectors of middle management, did get into the Press. Some newspapers treated that as being a likely foreshadowing of what the report would say.
But there was, for example, no possible anticipation of the way in which under these proposals Leyland shareholders will have the right to decide the future of the company in respect of the offer to sell shares to the Government or take on more shares through a rights issue. There has been relatively little leakage and a great deal of tribute is due to the Ryder team for the way in which this has been kept confidential.

Mr. Tomlinson: While I welcome the Ryder Report and the debate we are to have to discuss its detailed proposals, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government's investment in British Leyland is in any way contingent upon the self-generation of new investment from within British Leyland? Second, may I ask whether we shall have any opportunity to discuss consequential decreases in the public sector borrowing requirement, which many of us think ought to come because we are already in danger, with high rates of inflation, of exacerbating that inflation? If that is the priority can we consider other areas where cuts can be made? May I also ask what degree of confidence Sir Don

Ryder expresses in the proposals for the future rising demand in the world car industry?

The Prime Minister: To take up that last point, my hon. Friend will find it worth while to study the report which is now available. As for debating the matter, we shall shortly be putting before the House an affirmative resolution to enable us to make a further transfer of shares—

Mr. Skinner: A tranche?

The Prime Minister: That is how British Leyland likes it. Anyway, there will be a further injection of necessary investment capital. This will be debatable, and the House may consider it desirable on that occasion to debate not just that particular tranche but also the policy I have announced this afternoon.
To deal with my hon. Friend's question about whether the injection of Government capital is dependent on the self-generative saving, the answer in relation to the £2,800 million is "Yes". Over the long term it must be. We cannot contemplate dealing otherwise with £2,800 million of Government money. We believe the £1·4 billion will be available. When my hon. Friend studies the proposals in the Ryder Report, and what I have said, he will see that there will be a continuous injection over a period of years. Obviously, we must make our decision in respect of the middle and later years, dependent on the progress made in the self-generation of internal finance and on the whole success of the new board in meeting requirements.
On the question of the PSBR and the Budget, I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a long record of studying these matters, will agree that we need more investment in British industry. Even though the PSBR is so anxious a matter, at a time when the world is lurching into depression it is more than ever important to increase investment. An example such as this, I should have thought, and the NEB proposals mean that investment will be injected directly into where it is most needed for employment and exports.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister accept that this is one of the gravest statements affecting our country's international affairs that has ever been made to the House, involving as it does massive


sums of investment and 1 million jobs, and taking a substantial consumer manufacturing unit into public ownership? This ought not to be a matter of party political considerations.
The real consequences ought to be brought home to the country. To suggest that £2,700 million worth of investment, which could turn out to be more, is a consequence of the three-day working week is an irresponsible statement by the Prime Minister. The problems of British Leyland have been discussed for a long time and go much deeper even than the Prime Minister said. Will he accept that mere public control through a majority shareholding will not produce the answer for British Leyland? What is required is a complete reappraisal of attitudes by management and trade unions not only in the motor manufacturing industry but throughout the rest of British manufacturing industry, which is suffering to a large extent from a similar problem and is finding similar difficulty in getting investment funds or even cash liquidity.
Will the Prime Minister accept that mere public ownership will solve nothing? The Department and the NEB, which will be too overloaded to cope with this, will inevitably produce day-to-day intervention, which will have had effects. Therefore, what we must bring home to the country is that priority has to be given to investment, as against claims of consumption and excessive wage demands.

The Prime Minister: I agree with a good part of the right hon. Gentleman's approach. He is right in saying that this is one of the gravest decisions that any Government have had to make on industrial matters. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, almost for the first time in the arguments about public ownership which successive Governments have had to consider, this is a substantial manufacturing industry rather than a basic public service one, and so on. There is a strong case for extending public ownership in this area, but this was forced upon us for urgent consideration by the crisis last autumn.
The last thing I want to suggest is that the £2,800 million investment is due to the three-day working week. It could not have had that impact, but we

have been told that the company was pushed over the edge into the danger of receivership by the loss of markets and substantial cash flow during that period.
The right hon. Gentleman would be fair if he were to say that it also suffered on liquidity and cash flow because of successive industrial disputes which I condemned a number of times in the specific Austin-Morris Cowley context earlier this year in my constituency. I think the right hon. Gentleman and could agree that the £2,800 million is due to the long-term failure to invest in this and other basic British industries over the period of successive Governments of both parties. I am sure we can agree that this has been a deep-seated problem over many years. It has become endemic, and it has been highlighted by this sensational event.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are many problems to be solved here. When he studies the Ryder Report he will see that they have been fully tackled. There is an investment problem not only in quantity and quality but in direction. There is the question of new models, designs and labour problems, which we both agree are important.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that mere public ownership is not the answer. Public or private ownership may be the form, and we can argue about which is the best form in this or that situation, as we do in this case, but the only hope now is to get large new investment, restructuring and a totally different attitude by both sides to labour relations and productivity. Whether it is private or public ownership, we have to judge its success or failure by the extent to which it can contribute to those basic and essential criteria.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Short—Business Statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Employment Protection Bill
Motion on the Beef Premiums (Protection of Payments) Order.
TUESDAY 29TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Community Land Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 30TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill.
Remaining stages of the Lotteries Bill
THURSDAY 1ST MAY—Supply [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]: Debate on a motion to take note of the First Report from the Expenditure Committee Session 1974 on Public Expenditure on Transport, and the Fourth Special Report, Session 1974–75.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has announced Opposed Private Business for consideration.
FRIDAY 2ND MAY—Private Members'Bills.
MONDAY 5TH MAY—Supply [16TH ALLOTTED DAY]: Subject for debate to be announced.

Mr. Peyton: May I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman? First, is it not a bit late in the Session to start embarking on Second Readings of major Bills? We have a rather full week of the things, and it seems a little late in the year for these Bills to have good prospects of completion.
Secondly, we all regret—and I say this sincerely—the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment is to go into hospital. We wish him a speedy recovery, but, at the same time, I have to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition will greatly resent having a major Bill such as the Employment Protection Bill put to the House by somebody other than the Minister really responsible for it. That such a measure should be moved by anybody other than a Cabinet Minister is wholy unacceptable, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recollect what would have been the reaction of his side of the House had we in Government moved a trade union measure without the Minister responsible doing so.

Mr. Short: On the first point, we are at present about six months from the end of the Session. These are very im-

portant Bills in the Government's legislative programme and we intend to start them next week and get the Royal Assent before the end of the Session.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I know that the whole House will wish my right hon. Friend a speedy recovery. He goes into hospital on Sunday.
Because time is getting on, it will not be possible to postpone the Second Reading of the Employment Protection Bill until my right hon. Friend comes out of hospital. It is a Government Bill, not my right hon. Friend's Bill, and it will be dealt with quite adequately by the Minister of State.

Sir G. de Freitas: What consideration is my right hon. Friend giving to the representations that he has received from the Labour Party Steel Group, which urgently wants a debate on steel?

Mr. Short: I recognise the importance of this matter. There will be an early opportunity to debate steel on the Statutory Provisions Bill, which will be introduced very shortly.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have decided to proceed with and complete this Session the Bill to nationalise aircraft and shipbuilding?

Mr. Short: Certainly. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about this a few days ago.

Mr. Moonman: There is a Labour Party commitment to deal with new towns. Can my right hon. Friend say why we have not been able to debate the rather important consultative document?

Mr. Short: Because of pressure of business, but I have this very much in mind and will arrange it as soon as possible.

Mr. John Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the large number of European instruments outstanding for debate. Bearing in mind that the work of the Scrutiny Committee has been directed towards trying to secure early discussion of these matters in this House, will the right hon. Gentleman


please give a reassurance on the matter, without trying to make a personal segregation between the business chosen, bearing in mind that Opposed Private Business at some stage may seem to be of somewhat less importance than some of these measures?

Mr. Short: I have no control over Private Business: that is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. On the other point. I agree that there is a problem at the moment, in that there is intense pressure on parliamentary business. This week we are spending three days on the Referendum Bill. Recently we have had a three-day debate on the renegotiated terms. This has created great problems for the parliamentary timetable. We will make a start on these instruments as soon as possible.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Now that the unhappy events of the last decade are drawing to a final conclusion in that long-suffering country of Vietnam and the last vestiges of the American military machine that played such a large part in that suffering are about to leave, would my right hon. Friend indicate to the House what measures are being taken to protect British subjects who are still involved in that country?

Mr. Short: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question. This morning two RAF planes left Saigon for Singapore with the remaining British citizens on board. The embassy is already in Singapore and the ambassador will be there also.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when time will be provided for a debate on the Second Reading of the Scottish Development Agency Bill, which is urgently required in Scotland to deal with her industrial problems?

Mr. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the urgency and importance of this measure for Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I had hoped that the Opposition would agree to this Bill being taken in the Scottish Grand Committee, but they are unwilling to agree to that, so there will be some delay in getting a Second Reading for the Bill. I greatly regret this, but the Bill will have

its Second Reading as soon as I can find the time for it.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the tragic series of deaths of babies due to brutality, and also in view of today's allegation of the terrifying number of babies battered to death, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the consideration of the Justice recommendation that there should be an ombudsman appointed to look after the rights and treatment of children? If that is not possible, will my right hon. Friend undertake to refer this matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for her most urgent consideration?

Mr. Short: I certainly agree about the importance of this matter, and I agree with all that my hon. and learned Friend said about it. Unfortunately, for the reasons that I gave to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and other Members, I cannot find any time for a debate in the near future. I will take up my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion and refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to brush off my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) so brusquely. May I, too, be allowed to say how sorry I am to hear of the illness of the Secretary of State for Employment and to wish him a very rapid recovery?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Employment Protection Bill is of very great importance but not of great urgency? It would be far better put forward by the Secretary of State himself. I am certain, as my right hon. Friend said, that had the position been reversed—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will admit this—the fuss made by the Labour Party in opposition would have been very unedifying. I am trying to keep my language moderate. Will the Leader of the House reconsider having the Bill next Monday in the unfortunate absence of the Secretary of State and see if we cannot have it later? The right hon. Gentleman has—I hope he will agree with this, too—a wider responsibility to the House than simply to push through the


Government's business at all costs regardless of the rights of back benchers on both sides of the House.

Mr. Short: The Employment Protection. Bill debate does not in any way affect the rights of back benchers. The Bill is one of the most important items in our legislative programme for this year. If the Bill is to receive the Royal Assent this Session, it is important that it should be started and should get into Committee as quickly as possible. Therefore, we cannot wait until my right hon. Friend is discharged from hospital and has, no doubt, a period of convalescence after that. The Minister of State will deal with the Bill and will speak with the full authority of the Government. He is a very experienced Minister and Member of the House and will deal with the Bill quite competently.

Mr. Aitken: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the important Lords amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Eill will not be brought back to the House until the Secretary of State has recovered from his illnes? Although we all sympathise with the Secretary of State, we cannot have Hamlet without the Prince twice.

Mr. Short: I think that that may well be the case—not for the reason the hon. Gentleman gave but because, due to the pressure of busines, it will be some little time before we can take those Lords amendments and it may well be that my right hon. Friend will be back by the time we come to them.

Mr. loan Evans: As the legislation which is to come before the House next week is vital and as there are other measures which were foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech but have not yet had their Second Reading, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the possibility of extending the Session, to ensure that this legislation gets on the statute book?
In addition, as on the major statement concerning British Leyland we had no indication from the Opposition Front Bench about what their attitude is to this important development, could we through the usual channels ring them up to find out what their attitude is?

Mr. Short: On the main point my hon. Friend raised, it is much too early yet

to talk about extending the Session beyond the normal overspill time. There are considerable problems about Supply and other matters involved in extending the Session for any longish period. We can look at the matter later this summer.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House tomorrow morning and make a statement about the evacuation of British Embassy staff from Saigon and tell the House what assistance he hopes to give the Vietnamese who worked in the British Embassy and who may be at considerable risk in the near future? Will he also ask the Foreign Secretary to say just a word of condemnation about the way in which the peace agreement has been swept aside in recent weeks?

Mr. Short: Ignoring the implications contained in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because my right hon. Friend has expressed himself on this matter already—on the first part of the question, I pointed out—I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard it—that this very morning two RAF Hercules planes took the remaining British citizens from Saigon to Singapore, and I think the embassy staff are all there now with the ambassador. I will certainy convey what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Hampson: The right hon. Gentleman will realise the importance of the Bullock Report and the need to prevent it from being pigeon-holed and forgotten. Will he undertake that the House will have an opportunity to debate the major report?

Mr. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this report. It is one of the valuable reports which we cannot find time to debate just at the moment. I will bear it in mind, because I think it would be valuable for the House to debate the report at some time. We do not debate education matters in the House nearly sufficiently.

Mr. Burden: Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he should answer the Questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss


Fookes) and I have tabled about the intended destinations and categories of animals that are now being exported from Britain for slaughter? The Minister has refused to give this information. I believe that the House is entitled to it, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic. I hope that he will make representations to his right hon. Friend that he should give us this information.

Mr. Short: I know the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in this matter and I share it. Indeed. we had a few words yesterday about what has been happening recently. I will certainly convey all that the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr.Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we have a good deal else to do today.

Orders of the Day — REFERENDUM BILL

As amended (in the Committee), considered

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The House will doubtless have noted that, despite the short time available, it has been possible to reprint the Referendum Bill, incorporating the amendments which were made in Committee. I am sure that Members would wish me to congratulate St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press on this achievement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and, indeed, others whom it is not customary for the Chair to mention but who I think had a great deal to do with this.
The reprinted Bill was not, of course, in existence when the amendments handed in for Report were sent to the printer at a late hour last night, and the page and line references in the amendment list published this morning therefore inevitably relate to the old Bill. A new xeroxed typewritten copy of the amendment list has accordingly been produced, giving the correct page and line references to the new Bill, and is available in the Vote Office.
The texts of the amendments and their numbers are, of course, the same in both documents.

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I briefly thank you for making that statement and endorse your expressions of thanks to all those who have made such efforts and acted so quickly for the convenience of the House?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): May I associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said? St. Stephen's Press gets a lot of bricks thrown at it. It is nice to hear it congratulated. We are also grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your unusual and very welcome gesture from the Chair.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I join in the thanks which you have expressed and which have been expressed to you. However, may I respectfully point out


that even on the roneoed copy the same mistake has been made in each of five amendments. It is a small mistake, but one which, if not taken notice of now, could lead to confusion later. The mistake occurs in Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. In each case there is a reference to subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Bill, but it should in each case be subsection (4)
I do not blame anybody, for the very reason that you gave, Mr. Speaker. The Officers of the House have done a splendid job. However, the mistake indicates what great difficulties we are in when the Report stage follows the day after the completion of the Committee stage.
I have a further point of order, and I hope that I am not premature in raising it, but it is a matter for the Chair. I have your provisional selection of amendments, but it is not quite clear which amendments in the fourth group you will select for a Division. If you could indicate that, it would be of assistance to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Note will have been taken of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point. I have not yet made up my mind on his second point, but my intention was that certainly Amendment No. 4 should be voted upon. As to whether any others should be selected for Division, I should prefer to wait and see.

Mr. Michael English: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. Have you had time to consider the representations I made to you. through your advisers, regarding my Amendment No. 9, which was designed simply to carry out the spirit of what the Committee decided last night?
The other point I should like to raise is that where you have mine and another hon. Member's manuscript amendment taken together, would it be possible, if necessary, to have separate Divisions?

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the first point, my selection is a provisional one and I shall consider the matter further. With regard to the second point, I shall also deal with that situation when it arises.

Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did give

you notice, but I wondered whether it might be possible at this stage for consideration to be given to the situation that arises when the House finds itself in the massive difficulty of having to finish a Bill late at night and then consider amendments which it has to make sense of by this time the next day. I wondered whether representations might be made, through you, to the Leader of the House for this matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee so that it only arose in the most extreme emergency.

Mr. Speaker: Whether the terms of reference of the Procedure Committee are enlarged is a matter not for me but for the House as a whole. I am sure that note will be taken of the hon. Member's point.

New Clause 1

VALIDITY OF THE TOTAL VOTE

'The vote on the referendum shall be declared null and void—

(1) if there is an overall vote of less than 60 per cent. of those eligible to vote, and
(2)if there is not a two-thirds overall majority voting one way or the other.'—[Mr. Emery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I move the clause to save the Government from the possibility of the greatest constitutional fiasco that this country has ever faced. If there is a small turnout we may, because of the obduracy of the Prime Minister and the statement of the Prime Minister, find the Government committed to take action which has received support from only a small proportion of the total electorate. If that situation should arise, hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept that it would be a fiasco.
I do not wish to be drawn into the argument of estimating what the turnout will be, because there are many different views on that matter. Some people hope, believe and urge that the turnout will be high. My own view is that I doubt whether the turnout will be much greater than that at an ordinary county council election. If the turnout is only about 20 or 30 per cent. of the electorate, the House will be in a most embarrassing position.
I have discussed the possibility of the turnout with many people. I have found that many old and wise heads on both sides of the House are worried about the situation. The amendment comes into play only if those who are worried about a low turnout prove to be right. If they are wrong, nothing has been lost and the new clause will not be essential.
4.45 p.m.
Why is it important to consider the possibility of a low turnout? At a General Election with opposing party candidates, with all the party machinery geared up to the extreme, it is possible to bring out 70 per cent., 80 per cent., or even 84 per cent. of the electorate. However, at this referendum the chances of that sort of political activity seem to be fairly slight. There will not be the same sort of ward activity, with doorstep canvassing and the availability of cars. There will not be the same political drive as we find at a General Election.
There may be constituencies in which a high level of furore is created, but I believe that that will not be the general rule throughout the country. The problem will be to get as many people as possible to the poll. There will not be the usual election enthusiasm, because in many constituencies this matter cuts right across party lines. I can name several constituencies in the South-West where all three political parties are agreed about this matter. Therefore, the sort of conflict that a General Election creates in raising the temperature and stimulating activity and interest is likely to be lacking. If that is the case the possibilities of a low turnout are real.
I am propounding that the referendum shall be considered null and void, and not be binding in the context of the Prime Minister's statement, unless there has been a high level of turnout. This is not a novel suggestion. However, it is novel in this country because we have never had a referendum before. Where nations have had referenda, research shows that some countries have a minimum requirement and others do not.
I shall refer to some countries where a minimum requirement is now in existence. In Ireland, within the constitutional amendments, referenda are decided by a majority of the votes cast, provided

that 30 per cent. of the possible electorate have voted. In Denmark the position is exactly the same. It might be said that I am asking for a higher minimum requirement than applies in Ireland and Denmark. That is true, but in both those countries the percentage of voters who turn out at General Elections is much lower than it is in this country. That is why I have suggested a higher minimum requirement.
The amendment provides that the vote shall be declared null and void unless 60 per cent. of the people who are eligible to vote actually do so and unless there is a two-thirds overall majority voting one way or the other. In simple terms, that means that I am urging that the referendum should not have the effect that the Prime Minister stated it will have on the Government. It will not have that effect on the Conservative Party, but I am concerned about its effect on the Labour Party. Unless 40 per cent. of the electorate vote for coming out, no action should be taken. To face the argument head-on, if the pro-Marketeers do not get 40 per cent. of the votes the status quo would remain. For the status cuo to be altered, the opponents of continued participation in Europe will have to obtain the support of 40 per cent. of the people. That does not sound such an immense task. If we are really talking about the will of the majority of the people, the Government should willingly accept that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman used the expression status quo. I hope he will remember that status quo is an abbeviation for he expression status quo ante—the condition previously prevailing.

Mr. Emery: I would never at any time wish to enter into a conflict with a Greats scholar as I was only a Modern Greats scholar, but I remind the right hon Gentleman that status quo ante in the context of the referendum means that the United Kingdom remains in Europe. That was why I used that expression.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that ante is a preposition and that the meaning depends on the words that appear after it.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry to pursue the matter but I am invited by the Minister to do so. The word that is understood is bellum— the position before the whole debate or war arose.

Mr. Emery: The right hon. Gentleman is coming to my aid in agreeing with what I said. I shall proceed with the amendment and leave our Greats discourse to one side.
I believe that acceptance of the amendment would be of great assistance to Parliament. There are Government supporters who have always supported Britain's entry into the Common Market. I suggested in another debate that there might be a turn-out of 48 per cent. with 24·5 per cent. voting against and 23·5 voting in favour. If all Labour Party Members followed the Prime Minister's edict, even those who had voted as pro-Europeans time and again would have to vote against their conscience although only one-quarter of the people had urged us to come out of Europe. That would result in a parliamentary rather than a constitutional fiasco.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the basic idea of the referendum is to get the question of Britain's membership of the Common Market out of the way once and for all. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is a pro-Marketeer, but if the amendment is accepted and the turnout is less than the number specified in it, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the question would still be left undecided for the people who wished to continue the fight against Britain's membership of the Common Market?

Mr. Emery: That is a fair question which I can answer in several ways. There are some anti-Marketeers who for the rest of their lives will go on campaigning against co-operation with Europe and Britain's position in Europe, whatever the outcome of the referendum. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has outlined certain views along that line of thought. The House of Commons has voted time and again in favour of our being in Europe, the majority on the last occasion being 226. That is as positive a response to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) as I can possibly give.
Those electors who do not bother to cast a vote will be saying subconsciously that they have elected Members of Parliament to make these decisions and that they wish Members of Parliament to continue to make them. I have suggested previously that the referendum undermines the position of Members of Parliament because, for the first time ever, it attempts to mandate a Member of Parliament in how he shall vote. There are some political groups who would like Members of Parliament to be mandated, but I am very much against it.
I go back to the Burke philosophy—namely, that a Member of Parliament makes his judgments and opinions on behalf of his constituents. If his constituents do not like his judgments and opinions, they can get rid of him. I do not believe that constituents have the right to mandate a Member of Parliament, but the way the Prime Minister is heading is in that direction.

5.0 p.m

Mr. John Ovenden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepted the words of his former leader, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he said that Britian should be a member of the Community only with the wholehearted consent of the people. Although that does not override parliamentary sovereignty in quite the same way as the referendum, it is an aceptance that Parliament should pay attention to the wishes of the people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to stay in the Common Market however few people voted in favour of doing so in the referendum, but would he really be happy if we were kept in the Common Market by the votes of 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. of the electorate? That is what could happen as a result of his clause. If there were a poll of 50 per cent. and just over one-third of the people voted to stay in the Market, we would stay in under the terms of his clause. Would he be happy about that?

Mr. Emery: I should be happy if power were then reflected back to where it should be—namely, on the Floor of the House. That is the outcome of the logic of the question. That is why I would be happy. The more that we can do to discredit the referendum and referenda in general, the greater will be the strength


of the House and the greater will be the independence of Members of Parliament.
Although I have spoken on a number of occasions on this issue, I have always kept my remarks fairly short. Not for very long have I been on my feet. If anyone doubts what I have just said, there is a record of the time that they can examine.
I now come to my concluding remarks. This is a simple clause which specifically sets out to prevent a constitutional fiasco. It gives protection to Labour Members in that they could not be put into the difficult position of being mandated by a British electorate when only a small proportion of the electorate had spoken. It seems that I am doing a service to the Government. I hope that they will appreciate it and accept the clause.

Mr. William Hamilton: The clause looks remarkably like the one that I tabled in Committee. Therefore, I have little objection to the content of the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery)
When my party was in Opposition and the then Prime Minister took us into the Market we made great play politically of the undoubted fact that he reneged on his electoral promise in that he did not have the wholehearted consent of the British people. The right hon. Gentleman always argued that that wholehearted consent was implied in votes cast in the House. There is some validity in that view. It should not be disputed too strongly. If it were we would get into all kinds of constitutional difficulties and complexities that I would not like to visualise. The wholehearted consent of the British people has never been defined exactly and the result of the referendum will not satisfy any criterion on that score.
Let us suppose that the first condition of the clause is met and that we have an overall vote of 81 per cent. I think that the vote in the last election was much less than that. None the less, let us suppose that there is the high turnout of 81 per cent. and that 41 per cent. vote one way and 40 per cent. the other. Does anyone in the House seriously think that we would be mandated by the 41 per cent?

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Yes.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend says "Yes". It seems that my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) and Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) do not know this place. It is rather significant that they have both been here less than 12 months. I advise them to think carefully of the implications of what they are saying.
We are debating a unique introduction of a new principle in our parliamentary Government. Perhaps the word "unique" has been overused in this debate. However, we are saying that we shall consult the people on this issue. But we shall be called upon to consult them on many other issues after this one is out of the way. Do my hon. Friends say that when there is a narrow vote, or even a substantial vote, in another referendum on another matter on which the House feels strongly the other way, for example, as if did on capital punishment— we must accept the vote of the people outside? If that is what they are saying they are destroying the strongest argument that the anti-Marketeers are now pursuing—namely, the loss of sovereignty. It seems that they are using their own argument against themselves.

Mr. Geoff Edge: Does my hon. Friend accept that he and I fought on a Labour election platform on the basis that we would hold a referendum so that the British people could decide? If we are to honour the commitment which we made in that election, does he agree that we must accept the majority result of. the British people irrespective of what it is? Does he accept that 1 per cent. is still a majority?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend had better read the manifesto. The word "referendum" is not used in it.

Mr. Ovenden: It is.

Mr. Hamilton: No. it is not. My hon. Friends had better read the manifesto. It refers to action "through the ballot box". Of course, the ballot box can be used in two different ways. I wanted to have a General Election. If we wanted the British people to believe that we were having a referendum we would have said so in specific terms in our manifesto, but we were careful not to say that. The original term was the consultative referendum" but the word "consultative


has been dropped. We all know that whatever the result of the referendum it will still be consultative. Even if we have an 81 per cent. vote one way the House will decide irrespective. It will take notice of such a vote but it will not be bound by it. We shall still be free agents to decide no matter what the 81 per cent. have said We will take our own decision if we think that it is in the national interest. For good or ill we have been sent here to do just that.
Let us assume that we have a vote of 81 per cent. That would qualify under the clause as a valid referendum. But if the vote was divided between 40 per cent. one way and 41 per cent. the other there would not be a two-thirds'majority under the second part of the clause, and the result would be null and void. Of course, that would have to be spelt out in legislation. By making our own decision we would be acting not as delegates but as representatives. In fact, that is our status.
I pray in aid the other extreme. Let us assume that the referendum vote qualifies under the first part of the clause —namely, a 60 per cent. turnout. Further, let us suppose that it qualifies under the second part and that out of the 60 per cent. turnout there is a 40 per cent. vote one way and a 20 per cent. vote the other —namely, a two-thirds'majority. Such a vote would produce a majority that would be binding in the sense that the referendum can bind the House. It is a strange step to take. In other words, we are saying that if 40 per cent. of the voters say one thing, this sovereign House must be bound by that 40 per cent. even though 60 per cent. have either not voted or have voted the other way.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the Government have repeatedly said that the Government will be bound by the referendum, but that this House cannot be so bound?

Mr. Hamilton: The Government these days are bound by nothing. Each Government Minister is going his own way. That is part of the trouble. The Minister of State cannot speak for the Government, neither can the Prime Minister. This is one of our difficulties. It is no good the Prime Minister or anybody else

saying that the Government are bound by it. That is why some Members of the Government, including Cabinet members, have been given free play. Whatever the vote, they disagree with the EEC.
I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) the credit of having had the guts to resign from the Government on principle. But there are still members of the Cabinet who disagree in principle with the whole idea of the Common Market. The Foreign Secretary said that if he had come back from the renegotiations with a crock of gold, certain people would still have been against the Common Market in principle. Whatever the result of the referendum, even if the terms of the new clause were accepted, they will go on fighting if the result goes against them. If there is a substantial majority in favour of staying in, as all the public opinion polls forecast, the battle will not end there among some senior Ministers in the Government. This also applies to back-bench Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Since my hon. Friend has brought me into the discussion, perhaps I could ask him a question. If he is so worried about this House being merely morally bound by the result, why is he not worried by the House being bound by legislative decisions of the EEC Council and Commission, which we have no power to alter?

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend must not try to destroy the argument. We have debated the matter he seeks to raise ad nauseam and it will be debated in the country. If my right hon. Friend chooses to put that sort of argument to the housewife in Tesco's, he might get a more intelligent answer than he would get in this House. That is the basis on which he is now acting. But that is not the subject matter of the new clause.
Before any policy matter can get into the Labour Party's election manifesto, it must have a two-thirds'majority at a Labour Party conference for two years running. Even then it need not necessarily be included. When it has got over that hurdle, it must go to a committee composed of members of the Executive and the Parliamentary Committee.

Mr. Ovenden: An item of policy that fails to obtain a two-thirds' majority at a Labour Party conference does not become party policy: but we do not then put the minority viewpoint in the manifesto—which is what my hon. Friend is proposing. He says that if we do not get a two-thirds majority, the pro-Marketeers have won. We do not take that view at Labour Party conferences.

Mr. Hamilton: I am saying that if these conditions are not fulfilled, this House will resume its normal constitutional position—namely, the status quo, the sovereign right to decide what is good in the national interest. That is a very reasonable proposition.
I see no reason why the Government should not accept the clause. We may get a high turnout in the referendum, and I hope we do, but there must be a decisive majority. Even if there were not, I still maintain my own right in this House to vote whatever way I wish and to take the consequences in my constituency. My constituents know my position very well. I have explained it to them several times and they fully agree with it. I have lost nothing by being frank with them. They know my views on these matters, and I have never suffered electorally as a result. I shall continue to take that view.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: I intervene for only a few moments. As so often happens in these debates, I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). The real difficulty in this argument arises because of the constant repetition by Labour Members that this House is bound by the result of the referendum. [HON. Members: "No." ] Yes, it is often said that the House and hon. Members are bound by it. One has only to cite the silly letter written by the Secretary of State for Industry to the Leader of the Opposition last week which sets out that mistaken fact. I was delighted when the Minister of State a few minutes ago said that no Member of the House was bound by the result.
There is no need to build into the terms of the Bill the fact that the referendum is consultative. It is consultative in any event. The new clause would never have been necessary if that fact had been made clear, instead of things being

so twisted that people are led to believe that every hon. Member must be bound by the referendum result. Once that canard is exposed and the true position made clear, the clause should not be necessary.

Mr. Powell: I admire the wisdom of the Chair in selecting the new clause for discussion. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), not for the first time in the proceedings on this Bill, has performed a service by tabling it, for it is right before we part with the Bill, as presumably we shall sooner or later in this Sitting, that the House should cast its mind forward beyond referendum day. We should not allow ourselves to exist under the misapprehension that after referendum day everything will be cleared up, plain sailing, packed up and put away. It is overwhelmingly probable that referendum day will merely represent the end of one phase and the beginning of another in this great matter.
I do not agree with the proposition that this new clause should be added to the Bill, and I should like to explain why; but first it is important that we should put on record the agreed background against which it will fall to us to consider the outcome of the referendum, for, as has been repeatedly said, not least by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), it will be back on our plate after referendum day and our responsibilities in this matter will still be with us.
From the beginning, in 1970, there has been verbal agreement that British membership of the Community requires the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people. It is true that there is a dispute, which continues to this day, whether the word "and" is conjunctive or disjunctive—in other words, whether the two are to be read as one so that the decision of the House of Commons is the consent of Parliament and people, or whether they are disjunctive and the decision requires to be taken separately. However, which point of view one takes in this dispute is fortunately not relevant for our purpose this afternoon. Whether we like it or not, we are considering the possible outcome of an appeal from Parliament to the people. So whether "and" in the famous phrase is conjunctive or disjunctive does not matter in this context.

Mr. Tim Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), after he had used those words in his Paris speech, made it abundantly plain in two subsequent speeches that he was referring to the consent in Parliament and that that should be respected?

Mr. Powell: There is no need for the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) to remind me of this view of the meaning of the words used by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). There is also little doubt about the natural sense which those words conveyed to many people. But, fortunately, since we are concerned with an appeal, through the referendum, to the judgment of the people as opposed to that of Parliament, we can conveniently for the moment put that aside
It is important to recall the reason why the condition of full-hearted consent was uniquely attached to this decision. It was that British membership of the EEC brings to an end—technically at first but in intention fully–700 years of parliamentary self-government and the underlying principle of the British constitution that the supreme legislating and taxing authority in this country is Parliament. It was, therefore, considered to be logical—and I do not see how this can be disputed —that all that could only be terminated if there were full-hearted consent to its termination. That full-hearted consent, and the necessity for it, attaches to British membership of the EEC. It attaches to the act of terminating our former constitutional status. It does not attach to retaining our constitutional status, which we did, year after year, day after day, effortlessly and automatically. Nor does it refer—and it has never been used to refer—to a return, after a brief period, to our historical and fundamental constitutional status. It is membership of the EEC which requires the full-hearted consent which is now being sought from the people.
It is better at this stage—rather than for the first time after the referendum has taken place—that it should be put firmly. on the record that what I have just said is the view of the Government. On 14th January, when the Prime Minister first spoke at length about the referendum for which this Bill is now preparing, he

referred explicitly to the words of the right hon. Member for Sidcup in 1970. He said:
we are committed to, and are now proposing to seek, the full-hearted consent of the British people—on which the right hon. Gentleman once made a pledge."—[Official Report, 14th January 1975; Vol. 884, c. 186.]
The Prime Minister clearly saw the referendum in the context of 1970, of full-hearted consent being necessary to British membership. Moreover, the Leader of the House both in March, when the referendum was first debated at length, and subsequently, made it clear beyond doubt that that was the case. Referring to the referendum, the right hon. Gentleman said:
At last the British people will have their chance to say whether or not they give their full-hearted consent to our membership of the EEC."—[Official Report, 11th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 304.]
So it is a test to see whether the necessary full-hearted consent to membership exists and is obtainable or not.
Again, speaking more recently, the Leader of the House, who chooses his words carefully and is no hasty speaker, not someone to speak off the cuff, said of the referendum:
The people will have an opportunity of registering their full-hearted consent, or otherwise, to British membership."—[Official Report, 17th April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 676.]
When therefore eventually, after 5th June, the responsibility reverts to us, we shall at any rate approach that interpretation of the outcome which falls to this House with agreement upon the criterion which we are applying to it. The criterion is whether membership of the EEC—not whether commencing negotiations to disengage from the EEC—enjoys or not the full-hearted consent now being sought from the people, which we all consider to be essential, whatever might be the precise organ or organs by which the full-hearted consent is to be obtained.

Mr. William Hamilton: Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anyone else has ever defined what is meant by the words "full-hearted consent". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to that point.

Mr. Powell: I was coming to precisely that point in fulfilling my promise to explain why I did not believe it wise for


a clause of this kind to be added to the Bill.
I do not believe that we can, in advance, in a numerical fashion—in the face of all the possible eventualities on 5th June—define full-hearted consent to membership of the EEC in such a way that we are presented with an automatic interpretation of the result, the desire for which—I am not attributing this to the hon. Member for Honiton—lies behind many propositions for the inclusion of this kind of clause in the Bill. It is the idea that we can provide ourselves with a mathematical formula which would free us from responsibility, so that we could apply that mathematical formula on 6th June and then walk away with our work done. No clause that we can add to the Bill will relieve us of the duty of interpreting the outcome upon our own responsibility. Equally, nothing can relieve us of the duty of interpreting that outcome in the light of the agreed background to this debate which I have put on record—an agreed background which follows logically and necessarily from the consequences for Britain of being, or remaining, a member of the Community.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is clear that some will vote for and some will vote against remaining in the Common Market. However, a large number of people will abstain from voting because they believe that it is not their concern to vote but that it is the duty of Parliament to decide what is the proper thing to do. Therefore, we enter the period of the referendum knowing there are those who are against the idea of a referendum.
There is a fourth group of people. They say that they do not feel that they are fitted or capable of exercising the proper judgment necessary to vote on this occasion. That is why I say that the essence of the matter begins with the principle that if people do not vote, we in this House cannot be expected to treat the referendum as a guide. It is for that reason that, even if we do not include a clause which in terms says that we must have more than 60 per cent. of the British people voting if the result is not to be declared null and void. I for one would certainly not feel bound subsequently. The implication would be that a mini-

mum of a quarter of the nation were not prepared to bother to vote for one reason or another—they may be good or bad reasons—and we would be unable to interpret them subsequently.
If it is to be full-hearted consent, it would seem that we must begin with this country's constitutional position at this time. We have signed a treaty. According to the rule of law and what binds Parliament, we are in Europe under the terms of a treaty properly passed by the House of Commons. If we are to be taken out of Europe, it must be by the full-hearted opinion of the British people coming forward to say that they want to reverse that finding.
It is for that reason that I arrive at a contrary conclusion to that of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who was trying to build up an entirely specious argument based on certain words expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), with whom the right hon. Gentleman frequently finds himself at variance. Frankly, there is nothing in those particular words. What matters is the constitutional position in which we find ourselves.
Having accepted the treaty and entered the Common Market, an opportunity is now being given to the British people, by the device of the referendum—which so many like myself intensely dislike—to reverse the decision that has already been taken. If the British people do not want to stay in Europe, they will express that view with a vote now. Before we in this House are in any sense guided to take a view one way or the other, we are entitled to see whether it is the majority will of the people which they are willing to express in that direction.
The clause is valuable for discussion, even though in my judgment it is not necessary to press it to a decision, because it will make one thing plain—that at least 60 per cent. of the people must exercise their vote. If they express the view that we should come out of the Market and break our treaty obligations, it is not unreasonable that a minimum of 40 per cent. of the British people, rising to perhaps more than 50 per cent. on a big vote, should make it plain that that is their intention. We would find ourselves in a very difficult position if such a clear statement were to result. I


devoutly hope that it will not, and I shall certainly work in that direction.
A number of societies and organisations are presenting the view that, for one reason or another, it is not necessary to vote in this campaign. The hon. Gentleman who expressed the view that a tiny majority percentage one way or the other would be binding upon this House was quite wrong, as the Minister explained. It is unfortunate that the Government of the day, in the person of the Prime Minister should have indicated that they would be bound by the result without explaining to the people that at least a substantial vote would be expected before the Government would be so bound.

Mr. Tim Renton: Whilst my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was moving his new clause, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and he had a pleasant classical exchange about the status quo ante helium. I should like to remind the House of Tacitus's phrase regarding what happened after the bellum was over: Ubi Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The purpose of this dreary Bill, which we have been discussing for three days, is to introduce peace into the Labour Party. It has no other purpose. But where the Government hope to achieve peace they will create a desert in our tradition of parliamentary government. That is a factor to which the right hon. Member for Down, South called attention when he said that we were now approaching the end of 700 years of parliamentary democracy. I believe that when the Bill is done, at the end of this sitting tonight, this Parliament of ours will never he the same again.
I understand the reasons for my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton moving the clause. It is galling for all who, like me, are totally opposed to the principle of a referendum to find themselves having to try to sort out the shambles in which the Government find themselves. That is the principal reason why my hon. Friend moved the clause. In doing that. he has a somewhat surprising supporter in no less a person than the Secretary of State for Industry, who, according to The Times, in a speech to the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen on 8th April, commented:

If the British people can be persuaded to vote for continued British membership of that sort of European set-up, we shall, by a single vote on a single day, be throwing away Britain's national independence. Such a decision would be a tragic error.
I do not agree with the conclusion reached by the Secretary of State for Industry. However, it is interesting that he picked up that
by a single vote on a single day
we would be making this momentous decision.
It is a fact that the Prime Minister has said that the Government will be bound
by a single vote on a single day.
But we do not know just what that Government will be. It clearly will not be the present Government, because some right hon. and hon. Members will leave it. Some shadow of a Labour Government will presumably continue and he bound
by a single vote on a single day.
It is ridiculous that such a far-reaching decision for this country should be decided in that manner.
None the less, I cannot support my hon. Friend's clause, and I should like to give my reasons.
The first is that if we are to have this referendum—if it is thrust upon us by the Prime Minister for the purpose of saving his political skin—we must have simplicity. The referendum result must be conclusive for the people of this country. although it cannot be binding on individual Members of this House. When the counting is over, I hope that it will all be said and done with, that it will be conclusive for the country, and that there will be no question of another referendum in six, nine or 12 months because a certain percentage of votes had not been reached.
I fear that if such a formula as my hon. Friend has suggested were written into the Bill it would have the effect of urging the constitutionalists to campaign for abstention. They do not like the principle of the referendum. There are many people of all political parties who do not like that principle, and I fear that they would urge their friends and supporters not to vote in order that the magic percentage should not be reached. This would lead to an inconclusive result, and it is a conclusive result that we have to aim for.

Mr. Emery: Is there not a chance that if what my hon. Friend has just suggested came about, that there was a major abstention, this would ruin the future prospects of referenda in this country for ever, and surely if we can achieve that at the same time as this referendum is going through we shall have done a major service to our constitution?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The trouble is that in this instance the issue of our membership of the EEC is so important that we cannot afford to play with it in the way that my hon. Friend is suggesting. If we could destroy the principle of referenda for ever, no one would be happier than I, but this is not a good issue on which to play such a game.
We already see people campaigning for abstention and urging their friends and supporters not to vote. They are saying that it is an exercise of democracy either to spoil the ballot paper or never to get to the ballot at all. Many of us will have seen the paper from the Don't Know Campaign, an amusing paper which urges people. if necessary, to spoil their vote in order to make clear their protest against the whole referendum.
The gentleman who circulated some of us with this paper wrote a letter to the Western Mail which appeared yesterday. in which he developed this further. He said:
If we cannot be sure, it is our democratic duty to abstain from voting. The Don't Know Campaign has been formed to proclaim the democratic rights of those who do not know and if our number is numerically greater than those voting "Yes" or those voting "No" quite clearly the referendum will have failed and the Government must reassume its responsibilities.
I can understand a democratic person like that gentleman taking that point of view, but again, in search of a conclusive result, this is not a good issue on which to campaign for abstentions.
If the House agrees to the new clause we shall, by implication, be agreeing to accept the result of the referendum, assuming that the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend are reached. In fact, we shall be saying that if less than 60 per cent. vote the referendum is invalid. But by implication we should be going on to argue that if 60 per cent do vote and the right number vote "Yes" or "No",

Parliament will then be accepting the result because we shall have specifically written in to the Bill a clause accepting agreement to a qualified majority, a qualified numerical vote of the sort my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr.John Lee: Do I understand the hon. Member to be saying that if the result goes in a way that he does not like he will not accept it, however emphatic that result?

Mr.Renton: I do not take the hon. Member's point. What I am saying in opposing this new clause is that I am opposed to referenda. I have never made any bones about that from the time I moved a motion last November. I am urging that as a natural consequence of that I do not wish to see a qualified majority formula in the Bill. Nor do wish to see the implication that if that formula is reached and is approved by this House, Parliament will accept the result of the referendum. The Government have said repeatedly that this referendum cannot bind individual Members, and it would be disastrous if the House gave the impression that a certain percentage vote in the referendum could bind individual Members. For that reason, although I have great sympathy for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend in moving the new clause, I cannot support it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in his new clause. I had tabled a similar new clause for discussion in Committee, although I did not move it last night because I felt that the Committee wanted to make progress. 
What is concerning all those of who are involved with this matter is the great nightmare that the people might speak indistinctly in this referendum. We are worried about a poll of, say, 40 per cent. in which a majority of those voting—say, 21 per cent. of the electorate—would be in a position to bind the Government.
It is important to clear up this question of what is binding. The White Paper on the referendum said:
The Government have agreed to be bound by the verdict of the British people, as expressed in the referendum result.


This was echoed by the Lord President on 11th March at cols. 292–3 of the Official Report. However, the Government have indicated that in being bound, and this is a particularly important point, Parliament would take into account the way the people had spoken.
Here I want to quote the Minister of State, Privy Council Office on Second Reading of the Bill, when, speaking specifically about the question of a low poll and whether it would be binding, he said:
In reaching its conclusion, Parliament no doubt would take full account of all the relevant circumstances."—[Official Report. 10th April, 1975; Vol. 889. c. 1541.]
and he was saying that merely in the context of a low poll. He was accepting that the Government would still be bound.
Parliament no doubt would take full account of all the relevant circumstances.
Some of my hon. Friends will find no problem in this matter. To them referenda are so abhorrent that nothing would induce them to implement a "No" vote by supporting legislation to get us out of the EEC. They will not, therefore, be interested in any question of minimum turnout requirements, and I do not expect to carry them with me in this discussion. However, I say to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), that I do not think that that view can be sustained. In practice, a high turnout and a decisive result, I think, would have a very substantial influence on the majority of hon. Members. 
What concerns me, therefore, is the position of those hon. Members who are prepared to accept the guidance of the electors—however reluctantly in the case of a particular result—but feel the need for some more objective criterion of what should constitute effective guidance. The attitude of the Government is in effect to ignore the problem and hope that it does not happen. After musing aloud about this in paragraph 7 of the referendum White Paper, the Government say that they are:
concerned that the size of the poll should he adequate, and they are confident that it will be so.
They go on:
They also consider it to be of great importance that the verdict of the poll should he clear and conclusive.

I do not share their confidence, which is based more on hope than experience, and we are told little or nothing about what will happen if they are wrong. The Lord President also looked at this matter in his speech on 11th March and passed by on the other side. It is because I do not believe that this matter can be left in the state outlined by he Minister of State, that Parliament
would no doubt take full account of all the relevant circumstances 
that I support the new clause, for which there are many sound precedents overseas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton referred.
It has not been easy for me to say this, because I yield to no one in my detestation of the Bill, but, unlike some of my hon. Friends, I believe that the referendum result will influence a majority of hon. Members. The nation cannot afford an unclear verdict, because of the constitutional implications. That is why, if the people seek to refuse to accept the responsibility thrust upon them, they should be able to tell us "We do not know. You sort it out." I hope that that will not be necessary, and that the people will speak loud and clear, but because the prospects are so awful if they do not, I support the clause.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: My old friend Sir Harry Legge-Bourke told the electors of the Isle of Ely before the 1970 General Election that if the Government tried to take Britain into the European Economic Community after the election he would seek their views before voting for or against that proposition. After the Government's decision to enter he inserted a number of advertisements in the newspapers circulating within his constituency, setting out a ballot paper. He invited the electors to tear it out and send it to him at the House or at his party headquarters, but at the bottom of that ballot paper he said that any elector who did not choose to give his views to him would be presumed to trust the judgment of his Member of Parliament.
That does not seem to me to be a bad idea. Sir Harry was not the first man to think of it. That well-known and widely respected Commonwealth leader, Lee Kuan Yew, in the 1960s, held a number of referenda in Singapore to decide whether Singapore should become part of the greater Malaysia. As Chief


Minister, he made it plain before each referendum that any elector who did not cast his vote against the proposition would be presumed to be in favour of the idea supported by the Chief Minister. It could well be argued that any voter who does not go to the polling station on referendum day can be presumed to be in favour of the proposition to let Parliament decide.
My lion Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) pointed out that, for a number of reasons, referenda tend to attract a lower turnout of the voters that does a General Election. I suspect that there will be a substantially lower turn out on referendum day then we have been accustomed to see at General Elections.
Looking back into history we can find a number of occasions on which the fate of peoples and nations has been decided by a very low turn out. When the voters of Naples decided 115 years ago to go into the State of Italy, the turnout at that plebiscite was 19·per cent. I do not think that we shall have anything like that low turnout on referendum day, but it would be ludicrous for the Government, or the major part of the present Government, to try to take the country out of the European Economic Community if only 19·17 per cent. of the electorate took the trouble to record their point of view.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: We had a fascinating Committee stage, enlivened not least by the contributions of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), sometimes to the pleasure of the whole Committee, sometimes to the displeasure of the Government Front Bench, and sometimes to the displeasure of his own Front Bench, but at least he enlivened the debates We are also grateful to him for giving the House an opportunity to air this issue.
Much of the debate is based on a misunderstanding. It is not for the House to attempt to bind, through legislation, the Government's attitude to the result of the referendum. That is a matter for the individual or collective decision of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Equally, the result of the referendum, however high the turn out, cannot bind the House in a meaningful way. Like many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

I am a Burkean, although what Burke would have thought of referenda I hesitate to think. I believe, that, as individuals, we should be wise to take full account of the verdict of the people, and I shall do that in forming my own judgment. However, the referendum result cannot bind the House as a whole in any meaningful sense, and, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
The new clause has certain defects. The hon. Member for Honiton may not realise it, but there appears to be at least a strong possibility that if the result were to be declared null and void it might be necessary to have a re-run. Many hon. Members have expressed fears of a low turnout. I assume that if there were a low turnout in the first run it would be lower still in the second, and lower again in the third. We might find ourselves saddled with referenda for ever and a day on the same issue.
There is a rather more substantial objection of a technical kind, which is that it would be difficult to devise any means of deciding, if the turnout were close to the borderlines of the proportions prescribed in the amendment. whether the referendum result satisfied the criteria laid down by the hon. Gentleman. There are two reasons for that.
6 p.m.
One will be obvious on the basis of the debate we had in Committee. We decided in Committee to add to the electorate those Service men who are not registered. By definition, because there is no register of those Service men, we do not know with any precision how many would be eligible to register, and, therefore, it would be impossible to calculate—more impossible than it normally is—in this referendum the electorate eligible at any moment of time to vote. In an ordinary General Election that would be difficult enough.
The words in the hon. Gentleman's clause are "eligible to vote". There are two definitions of eligibility. One is "being on the register" and the other is "being on the register and alive". We do not keep a record of those who have, unhappily, passed from this world since 10th October of the previous year. It is not at all clear that technically the hon. Gentleman's new clause would stand. I have every sympathy with his intentions,


but it is related to a rather different matter.
There are countries in which a two-thirds majority in referenda is required. The normal purpose of requiring a two-thirds majority, or some similar figure, is to entrench in a constitution a provision to which a particular importance is attached. It is a device to hamper quick change, and a device to buttress the status quo ante, if I may use the phrase mentioned earlier in the debate.
The debate has shown that in the House of Commons there is some doubt as to what is the status quo ante.
Are we, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would argue, debating whether to change, fundamentally, the status of the United Kingdom by ratifying, in effect, a decision made three years ago—that is what he would say was the purpose of the referendum—or are we, as the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) argues, deciding whether or not to reverse that decision? If we cannot agree here, it is highly unlikely that the electorate would accept that, to build into the provision for a referendum a requirement which rested ultimately upon one's own individual interpretation of the answer to the question, would be the sensible procedure. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Richard Kelley: Will the hon. Member describe how an evolutionary and democratic process could be defined within a certain prescribed character? If we have an evolutionary process of democracy we must have an evolutionary process of thought of democracy.

Mr. Emery: Before I withdraw the new clause I would point out that I put it forward to try to save the Government from the follies and the tragedy they created for themselves. If they spurn my assistance, do not think that I should go to the position of forcing the House to save the Government. Therefore, with that logic, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

HOLDING OF REFERENDUM

Sir Michael Havers: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
'(c) British passport holders having the right of abode in the United Kingdom who—

(i) are resident in a country outside the United Kingdom, but are employed by the Government of the United Kingdom or by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member;
(ii) are at the dates of the referendum of the age of 18 years or over; and
(iii) are not entitled to vote in the referendum under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection.'

I hope that the amendment meets, as far as possible, the objections given by the Lord President in the debate on Tuesday, when we were seeking to extend the franchise to all those overseas, with the qualification that they had to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and no right to vote in any other foreign country.
We listened to the objections raised by the Lord President. They were strong objections—ones which we could well understand. I do not think they were sufficient, but the Committee thought they were sufficient and our amendment was rejected. We are still anxious that some franchise should be granted to those who are working either for the Government of the United Kingdom or for an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member. We have accordingly framed this amendment to cover those people.
Looking back to the five reasons which the Lord President gave to oppose our argument last Tuesday, it seems that we have met, so far as is possible, those five grounds. I should have thought that in those circumstances those who would be covered in this amendment can never be described, by any stretch of the imagination—whichever Minister replies to this debate—as "lotus eaters" or as those "swanning around" in the Mediterranean without any intention of returning to the United Kingdom. Those people, by the very nature of their occupation, are excluded from those offensive definitions and, therefore, there cannot be, in any sense, any moral exception to this.

Mr. Goodhart: The House will recall that following our first debate in Committee we made special arrangements to allow our Armed Forces to vote in this unique referendum. We welcome that concession. At that time it was pointed out that many servants of the community —indeed, servants of the Crown—who were equally worthy, would be unable to cast a vote on this occasion.
The Leader of the House, in a speech that was, I fear, sadly characteristic, constantly referred to lotus eaters and suggested that many of those who were living abroad were unworthy of taking part in the referendum. In order to meet the objections of the Leader of the House, we have drawn a very narrow amendment indeed, confining the right of those abroad to have special arrangements made for them to vote to those who are working directly for the Crown or for international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member.
The number of people involved is much smaller than the number of people whom we were trying to help in the amendments in Committee. Then it was estimated that the number of people to whom we were trying to give the right to vote in this referendum might be as large as 300,000. I suspect that this amendment would enfranchise no more than 50,000 people.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Member enumerate the organisations that this amendment covers? It does not specify them. It may help us to know more precisely the numbers involved.

Mr. Goodhart: It would be difficult for me or for the Minister at short notice to list all the international organisations of which this country is a member. One can think, for example, of the European Economic Community. About 100 of our citizens work for that organisation. One thinks of NATO, the OECD, the United Nations, UNESCO, and so on. Certainly there are a considerable number, which I would estimate to be about 50,000. If there is a single lotus eater to be found among them, it could only be some research worker studying the nutritional value of lotuses at the Food and Agriculture Organisation's research laboratories.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will recognise that there are a con-

siderable number of British citizens working abroad for the Crown and the Community who wish to have the opportunity to take part in this unique electoral experience for the British people. Our amendment is a worthwhile attempt to meet the difficulties which have been set forth.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) will know that I, for one, have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, but I ask them to reflect on the fact that in the light of the vote in Committee the will of Parliament on this matter has been declared. However regretful we may be about the will of the Committee, we should accept it. Rather than continuing the debate and forcing a Division, we should continue with the Report stage and Third Reading.

Mr. Tim Renton: While I have great admiration and support for the various amendments moved by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) during the Committee proceedings, I must correct the hon. Gentleman on the remarks he has just made. I tabled an amendment in Committee which was somewhat wider than this one. It was to give the vote to those who were abroad—either for business reasons or on behalf of the Government—last October and were unable, therefore, to get their names on the present electoral register. The scope of that amendment was somewhat larger than that of this amendment. I spoke to it in Committee, but the Chairman did not call it for a vote, although I particularly requested that he should. I am very pleased that Mr. Speaker has selected this somewhat smaller and more restricted amendment for debate today.
It gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) because I have often disagreed with him in the past on the principle of referenda. It is, therefore, pleasant to find ourselves for once, speaking with one voice. The whole House owes my hon. Friend gratitude for having written a book on referenda two or three years ago. It has been an invaluable source of information for all of us. I am pleased to hear that it is now out of print—or at least, not available for sale


at Harrods—such has been the demand for copies.
On Sunday last the Secretary of State for Social Services, when talking about those Conservatives in Parliament, such as myself, who oppose the principle of the referenda, said,
It is part of the hysteria which is being built up to try to convince the British people that they cannot do what they want to do.
Not one word that I have heard in this debate convinces me that the Prime Minister or the Lord President care one fig for what the people want to do in terms of this referendum. Indeed, I am myself made particularly humble about the referendum by the fact that when I drove back from London Airport in a taxi yesterday, I was engaged in conversation with the taxi driver and, as I got out of the taxi, I said to the driver "Now, the really important thing ahead is the referendum", to which he replied "Oh. Is that today?"
What has happened in these debates is that every attempt that we have made —with the exception regarding Service men—to widen the vote, in response to pressures from British people—constituents, holiday makers, and those who work abroad on behalf of Britain—has been resisted by the Government. The reasons that they have given have almost always been centred around the impracticability of making exceptions within the very tight timetable they have set themselves in order to get off this particularly uncomfortable hook as soon as possible.
6.15 p.m.
However, those are not reasons which will in any way convince the British people that the Government are trying to do what the British people want them to do.
Now, at this late stage, we come back to seeking the vote, in this vital referendum, for a very small category indeed. When I spoke to my amendment in Committee on Monday evening I referred to it as a "de minimus" amendment. Whatever is the category which is even smaller, below de tninimis, this is the amendment for them. It is specifically to help those who are abroad for good reasons, working for the British Government, with an important job to do, and whose opinions in relation to the future of this country must be important.
I hope, therefore, that by accepting this very modest amendment the Government will at last show some inclination that they are trying to broaden the scope of the referendum for a small group who are really entitled to take part in it.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: While having considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, I cannot share the view of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that this is what the British people want—or at least, if that be the case, he produced no evidence to support it. His taxi driver, it appears, did not even know when the referendum was likely to take place. It is certainly no evidence that the taxi driver also took the view that certain categories of Britons abroad should be allowed to vote. I have not had one letter from any of my constituents about the matter. Despite my sympathy, I believe that we should not mistake this amendment with the will of the British people.
I take the point of the amendment. There are difficulties of definition with regard to international organisations. I do not think that only the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) would be in difficulty in answering the question of what constitutes such an international organisation. I note the careful attempt that has been made, however, to define the qualifications so as to exclude those lotus eaters and others who were discussed in Committee. Of all the qualifications specified, perhaps the essential one is the fourth qualification. I ought to point out that the first part of that qualification—namely, that of being
employed by the Government of the United Kingdom or by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member
is, strictly, unnecessary. Under existing electoral law—and this seems still not to be universally understood—servants of the Crown resident overseas are entitled to make a service declaration and to be registered in that way. Crown servants whose overseas residence began before the qualifying date for the current register will accordingly be registered in accordance with the service declaration. Crown servants whose residence overseas has begun since that date will be on the current register by virtue of their ordinary United Kingdom residence and will, therefore, of course, be entitled to a vote


by proxy. This group of voters would be cut out by the sixth qualificaion set out in the amendment, on the ground that they are already covered by the Bill.
There is some difficulty, too, about the nationality requirements as specified in the amendment. There are, of course. many British subjects from Canada. Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries who are working for international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member, who have no links with the United Kingdom, and many of those whose fathers or grandfathers were born in the United Kingdom would have the right of abode under the patriality provisions of the 1971 Act. The limitation of the right of abode by itself would not be effective in excluding such persons and would produce some curious anomalies.

Mr. Goodhart: Would they hold British passports?

Mr. Fowler: I am coming to that. I assume that it is precisely for that reason that the amendment specifies that such persons should also be British passport holders. I can only assume, too, that the wording is deliberate, so as to exclude persons entitled to a British passport but who do not possess one. This seems an unsatisfactory test. It is not clear why that formula has been chosen rather than the simple one of citizenship of the United Kingdom. It is true that citizenship covers a large number of people who have no direct connection with the United Kingdom, but there would not be many of them working for international organisations of which the United Kingdom was a member. Those who were would necessarily have passports as a result of the nature of their work.
In any event, the phrase "British passport holder" is not a term of art. Used in a Bill it is somewhat objectionable. The basic objection to the amendment is one of principle. We decided in Committee to reject any extension of the franchise to persons who would not be entitled to register to vote under existing electoral law. Whatever the claims of international civil servants, with whom I have every sympathy, there are other categories of British subjects overseas, business men in Europe, for example, with equally strong claims which have been pressed upon us and rejected. If endless anomalies are to be avoided the

only defensible position, in our view, is to confine the franchise to persons entitled to be registered to vote under the Representation of the People Acts. That is where we must take our stand.

Mr. Peyton: I shall not detain the House for long. I had no intention of speaking in this debate originally. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), moving the amendment, was supported ably by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton and Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), in a sound case. The purpose of the amendment is to meet, so far as possible, the objections put forward by the Leader of the House to an amendment we moved in Committee. I can only assume that the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), in his intervention, was desperately trying to get back his stripes after the offence he committed yesterday, when he helped save the Government from themselves and dug them out of some of the consequences of their folly.
This amendment was drafted with great care to meet Government objections. When the Minister of State, at the Dispatch Box, says that it is not the will of the British people, I do not know what he is talking about. He has no evidence for such an assertion.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: rose

Mr. Peyton: Almost every time the hon. Gentleman intervenes he succeeds brilliantly in prolonging the debate. Does he still wish to intervene?

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman might, in honour, recognise that I did not say that. What I said was that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) had produced no evidence that that was the will of the British people. That is somewhat different.

Mr. Peyton: That is a wholly bogus point. All along the Government have said that they want as many people as possible to take part in the referendum. We have consistently said that those who are working overseas—in this case, those who are bound by their duty to the State to be working overseas—should be given the opportunity to vote. But the Government take a narrow, dogmatic, doctrinaire view.
The Government try to get one or two rather grubby and fly-blown principles to cover the nakedness and poverty of their arguments. They rely upon that tattered, meretricious old creature "administrative convenience"—so often dressed up in this House as a principle in a desperate attempt to make the old so-and-so look respectable. I cannot believe that the Government are justified in their narrow-minded attitude.
I would have been quite willing to see this amendment withdrawn if the Government had shown a readiness to meet

us in practice by tabling an amendment in another place which would in some way help to widen the franchise. They have not done so, and the only remedy we have is to vote for the amendment so that the Government and their supporters can suffer the mortification of walking through the Lobby trying to defend the indefensible once more.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 231.

Division No. 189.]
AYES
[6.26 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nelson, Anthony


Alison, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Hall, Sir John
Newton, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom


Awdry, Daniel
Hannam, John
Osborn, John


Baker, Kenneth
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Banks, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Benyon, W.
Havers, Sir Michael
Penhaligon, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Douglas
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buck, Antony
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Budgen, Nick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Silvester, Fred


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kirk, Peter
Sims, Roger


Cockcroft, John
Lamont, Norman
Speed, Keith


Cope, John
Lane, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Costain, A. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawson, Nigel
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stokes, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Luce, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tebbit, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Madel, David
Townsend, Cyril D.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hon George


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Montgomery, Fergus



Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morgan, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Mr. Phillip Goodhart aad


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Tim Renton


Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman
Bean, R. E.


Anderson, Donald
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Bates, Alf
Body, Richard




Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Buchan, Norman
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Reid, George


Buchanan, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson. Miss Jo


Butter, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Canavan, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Rooker, J. W.


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Selby, Harry


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Crawshaw, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lee, John
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lltterick, Tom
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Delargy, Hugh
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Luard, Evan
Stallard, A. W.


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stott, Roger


Dunn, James A.
MacCormick, Iain
Strang, Gavin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Edge, Geoff
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


English, Michael
Maclennan Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thompson, George


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, John (Newton)
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Magee, Bryan
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mahon, Simon
Tomlinson, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Milian, Bruce
Watt, Hamish


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Weetch, Ken


Gilbert, Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Molyneaux, James
Wellbeloved, James


Golding, John
Moonman, Eric
White, James (Po11ok)


Gouid, Bryan
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, Willlam


Graham, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


>Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice
Woodall, Alec


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ovenden, John
Woof, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Owen, Dr David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hatton, Frank
Padley, Walter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Palmer, Arthur



Hefter, Eric S.
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Henderson, Douglas
Parry, Robert
Mr. John Ellis and


Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurle
Mr. David Stoddart


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred



Huckfield, Les
Perry, Ernest

Question accordingly negatived.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 11, after 'members' insert:

'or civilians who are holders of a British passport and attached to units serving over-Seas'.
This is a fairly simple amendment, and one which I feel certain the Government will have pleasure in accepting. The


situation is quite clear. The Government went to great trouble in Committee to ensure that special provisions could be brought into existence so that the people defined in Section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, or the spouses of such people would have the right to vote. I welcomed the amendment, but I said that it was wrong to leave out one class of people, namely, civilians who are attached to units of Her Majesty's Forces serving overseas, and for that reason I think it important to cater for this section of our military society.
Those whom I have in mind often work in welfare services. The NAAFI immediately comes to mind, but there are the Church Army and other organisations. There are civilians who may, technically, be attached to units for mechanical purposes—and I think particularly of the Royal Air Force—but a growing number of civilians are replacing men in uniform and doing some of the non-sharp end jobs, both at home and overseas. These people should be able to vote.
There are those who come under Section 46. If they are abroad on training, whether they are in the Middle East or in Europe, they will not necessarily be able to vote. I thought that I was beholden to see if it would be possible that this small category would not be deprived of the right to vote in the referendum.
There may be a drafting error in my amendment. It had to be drawn up at ten past three this morning and made as near perfect as possible so that it could get to the printers in time for consideration today. It is not the best way of drafting British legislation, that Members are forced to draft amendments without having the reprinted Bill before them and when the Report stage is taken only a few hours after the Committee has been concluded. I make no apology for any drafting error.
The Minister of State may argue that the phrase "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" would be better than
holders of a British passport".
This is a technical matter which I could have attempted to have got right if I had had legal advice but, sensibly, at 3 o'clock this morning the legal luminaries

were in their beds and were not to be disturbed by a Member who wanted advice on a minor drafting point.
I had a word with Mr. Deputy Speaker a few moments ago and said that if the Government's only argument were to be that the amendment is less worthy of acceptance because of the words
holders of a British passport
the words "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" should be considered for inclusion. I ask that only if the Government should see fit to accept the amendment.
I hope that the Government will want to meet the aims of the amendment. It will not be good enough for them to say that the matter is difficult. Of course it is difficult. If it was not, the matter would not have been left out in the first place. I am sure that the Minister would wish to cover everybody serving with or attached to a defence unit overseas. This simple amendment is an easy way of achieving that.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government do not want to extend the franchise to anybody who might not be franchised in an ordinary election. Everybody has decided that this is not an ordinary election. That has been said by the Government, their supporters, the official Opposition, and the fringe parties.
6.45 p.m.
Surely, the Minister would desire that any difficulties which might arise should be overcome. I hope that the Minister will not say that if the Government were to yield on this point a special category would be created—those serving with or attached to defence units overseas—and that that would open the door for those away on business in Europe and that they would become a special category. I should not mind that. It would be better to bring in a few extra people than to exclude them merely because we cannot cover everybody. A counsel of perfection will never succeed. It is better to enlarge the electorate as much as possible even though we cannot cover everybody. I believe that the Minister will want to meet the principle of the amendment.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was at his most persuasive. I should like to respond by


being at my most sympathetic, particularly in view of the hon. Gentleman's devotion to duty late last night which led him to table the amendment.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say that I thought that his argument was occasionally somewhat circuitous. He said that he hoped that I would use no argument which was convincing in case it should convince. I know those were not his exact words, but that was the burden of what he said.
I can give no such undertaking. Although I may not convince the hon. Gentleman, I must tell the House that I am convinced by what I find it necessary to say.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the argument on this amendment, as on others, turns on two very important sections of the Representation of the People Act 1949. Section 10(1) brings in all categories under the heading of "Service qualification". In other words, it is a very wide-ranging section.
On the other hand, Section 46 narrows the area considerably and refers to members of the Forces rather than to the wider Service qualification in Section 10. It is this section which we used in the amendment which was accepted by the House on Tuesday to make special arrangements for members of Her Majesty's Forces and their spouses.
I am sure that this was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but the amendment splits Section 10 of the Act—the heading "Service qualification" and unfortunately blunts the principle which is clear within that section without adopting the principle embodied in Section 46 which was at the heart of the amendment accepted on Tuesday.
The justification for our amendment was both the question of principle—Section 46 plus spouses—and the question of practicality. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know the answer to his question whether we would allow the problem of making satisfactory arrangements to put us off. It would not put us off, and the very fact that we introduced the amendment on Tuesday was evidence of a great deal of persistence on the part of Ministers to meet the wishes of the House. The safeguards which I was able to spell out on Tuesday could not be spelt

out on this amendment. There would not be the same control and discipline as everyone would regard as necessary and it would be very difficult to cancel the proxies for these groups of people—those at present qualified under Section 10—in the way that we intend to cancel the proxies of the Service voter and his spouse.
In case there should be any misunderstanding, I referred in c. 1309 of Hansard on 22nd April to circumstances in which proxies would continue. I had in mind then those who come under Section 10 of the Act, who have a Service qualification, but who do not come under Section 46 whose proxies will be cancelled. Whereas we have considerable evidence, which the House accepted, of a low rate of registration, one in four, among Service men and their spouses, there is no evidence in practice of a low rate of registration in the other categories within Section 10. In other words, if Ministry of Defence people are abroad serving with units, they will retain their proxies as hitherto. We have no evidence that a large number of them who are qualified are not registered and will not have proxies.

Mr. Emery: I follow the argument that the hon. Gentleman is propounding. The exclusion of everybody because somebody might cheat is not the best way of enlarging the whole of the electorate. Therefore, if the real worry concerns only the proxies, let us insert in another place an addition to this amendment to the effect that anybody holding a proxy would not be eligible. I accept that some hon. Members may say that it will be difficult to prove. However, the number of people who are likely to cheat in this way is so infinitesimal that I am willing to run that risk.

Mr. Rodgers: There is a question of balance and certain risks must be run. It depends on where the House would like to draw the line. The hon. Gentleman will concede that, although I mentioned the difficulty of cancelling proxies, I did not, in major part, rest my case on that point. I have rested my case on the provisions of Section 46 of the 1949 Act and the extent to which persons might have their proxies cancelled if we adopted the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, but nevertheless now have proxies,


because they have registered as they were eligible to do under Section 10.
I should like to believe, because this would be entirely what I would expect of the hon. Gentleman, that he has proposed a helpful exploratory amendment. He moved it reasonably and he has given us all great cause to reflect on the curiosities of the 1949 Act and the fact that perhaps one day circumstances may occur when the House will wish to amend it. In the meantime, I hope that he will feel it is not right to press his amendment.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

CONDUCT OF REFERENDUM

Mr. MacFarquhar: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 18, at end insert
'and the Counting Officer shall arrange for the counting of votes cast in each of the areas referred to in subsection (4) below to be held in such local place or places as he may think fit with respect to that area'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall consider the following amendments:
No. 2, in Clause 1, page 2. line 2. after 'expedient', insert
'for securing that the counting of the votes takes place in each of those parts of the United Kingdom as are respectively specified in subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act'.
No. 5, in Clause 2, page 3, line 18, at end insert
'who shall appoint Assistant Counting Officers who shall be responsible for the counting of the vote cast in each of the areas mentioned in subsection (4) below; and the said Assistant Counting Officers shall upon conclusion of such counting for which they are responsible certify and report to the Counting Officer each total referred to in the said subsection'.
No.6, in page 3, line 18, at end insert
'; and he shall appoint appropriately qualified persons in each area, specified in subsection (4) below as returning officers to conduct the area counts and declare the results as they become available'.
No. 7, in page 3, line 18, at end insert—
'Provided that the count of the votes cast in each of the areas referred to in subsection (4) below shall, in every case, be carried out in a convenient place in each such area'.
No. 8, in page 3, line 22 after 'total', insert
'arrived at at a central count'.

Mr. MacFarquhar: My hon. Friends the Members for Goole (Dr. Marshall)

and Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and I have put down this amendment because it became clear at the end of the debate on Amendment No. 49, in Committee last night, that the Lord President believed that even if that amendment were carried —as it was—the Government could still hold the count nationally at Earls Court although the result would have to be declared on a regional basis.
When I moved Amendment No. 49 I was firmly under the impression that it would entail regional counts as well as regional declarations. I believe that that was also the impression of all hon. Members who supported Amendment No. 49 last night. I must apologise to them and to the House, but I was mistaken and, therefore, it is necessary to take time to discuss this further clarifying amendment. I certainly did not disguise what was in my mind.
On Second Reading on 10th April I specifically rejected both the central count and the single United Kingdom result. I spoke then as if the two were inextricably intertwined. Yesterday I stated that I was proposing that the result of the count should be declared by regions and counted in the regions. When the Lord President indicated that although Amendment No. 49 certainly laid down declarations by regions but did not necessarily lay down counts by regions, I immediately intervened to point out that it was my intention that the counts should be done locally. I believe that that intervention expressed not only my intention in moving the amendment, but the will of the House.
I am encouraged in this belief by the presence on the Order Paper today of the amendments put down by myself and my hon. Friends, and by several other clarifying amendments from both sides of the House.
I do not wish to refer again in detail to all the practical arguments that were cited yesterday and on Second Reading against that psephological grotesquerie—the Earls Court count, an event which would turn London into the confetti capital of the Western World. Suffice it for me to list the problems. There is the risk of the loss or destruction of boxes transported from all over the country. What will happen if the train on which the hon. Member for Moray


and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is riding shotgun crashes? Heaven forfend! What will happen if the boxes go up in flames? There are transportation problems in a General Election at a local level, but they are far less in magnitude than the transportation problems that would arise if we had an Earls Court count.
The dangers of sabotage and practical jokes have also been mentioned. Perhaps most important—now that the House has decided that the result will have to be declared on a regional basis—the most stringent care would have to be taken to see that the boxes were not mixed together. With a national count there would be no problem, but now the boxes would have to be kept separate, county by county, region by region, not just at Earls Court but all the way to Earls Court, which would be even more difficult.
A single train from Glasgow might be the simplest way of getting ballot boxes down from the west of Scotland to London, and from many places in between, and then down to Earls Court, but how easy it would be for a mistake to occur. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn and her shotgun could not be in every place at the same time. One lorry delivering ballot boxes to Earls Court could be misdirected, and the result for my county—Derbyshire—could quite easily be confused with the result for, say, Leicestershire. I could go on with this argument, but I do not need to, because I know that the majority of hon. Members have already indicated that their minds boggled at the concept of the Earls Court count
.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that counting is done in or near the regions the results for which are separately to be declared. The amendment is deliberately vague in specifying at what level the count should take place in different places; that is left to the discretion of the counting officer. What is not vague in this amendment is the fact that counts should take place at local level and not at one central place. One proviso, in the light of the rejection last night of the amendment suggesting a count on a constituency basis, is that the counting officer would clearly have to take care not to

order counting to take place in such a way that constituency results might leak out.
I shall list a few important concrete advantages of having the count locally. First, I am sure that the result would be obtained sooner. As the Government have rejected a number of amendments that were put forward in Committee on the ground that they desired speed for the referendum, I should have thought that this was a powerful argument.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, there is the question of a recount. Most hon. Members are aghast—I am sure that the counting officers would beat the idea of a recount, at Earls Court, of millions upon millions of votes. Yesterday, when talking to Amendment No. 49, the Minister of State indicated the problems that might be posed if there had to be a recount at local level two or three days after the initial count had been assessed.
May I suggest the solution to that? The counting officer could well reply that every local counting centre should in every case have an immediate recount before the declaration, whatever the tally of votes "Yes" or "No". That would be a relatively simple and quick procedure, as at General Elections. When the figures were put together for the overall national result it would be known that they had been double-checked at the beginning, and however narrow the margin in the referendum result, it would command general acceptance.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Mr. MacFarquhar: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman has spoken many times and I am trying to be quick. I usually give way, but not today.
But, Mr. Speaker, the strongest argument now for local counts as opposed to a national count is not the considerable administrative problems involved. The strongest argument now is that by passing Amendment No. 49 last night the Committee indicated, if somewhat imperfectly, that it is the will of the House that there should be a local count and not a single national count. I therefore ask the Government to recognise the will of the House and accept the amendment without a Division.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: It may help the House if I intervene at this early stage in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) said, the Committee yesterday carried his amendment. That amendment leaves open the question where the count takes place. The Government would be free to have a central count at Earls Court, as we planned, or to have the count locally. The effect of the amendment is that the result must now be declared by counties.
There are two methods of counting the votes. They could be brought to London and counted centrally or they could be counted locally. It is not true that chaos would ensue if they were counted centrally. This exercise has been planned over the last few weeks with military precision, and I have assured myself that it could and would be carried out efficiently. I am also sure that it could be carried out efficiently locally. Administratively, therefore, there is probably nothing in it or, it there is anything in it, the edge is slightly on the side of a central count. As I say, that has been planned down to the last detail, even to the kind of seal that is to be used on the boxes.
One of the great merits of a central count is that it enables a recount to take place quickly. A recount is difficult at any time. I am not minimsing the problems of a recount at Earls Court, but it can be done there. All the counters would be there, and the voting papers would be there. On the other hand, if the count is done by counties, the counties will finish at different times, spread over perhaps 36 or 48 hours. The counters will have gone home and the voting papers will have been put away. If the national result is close, say, within 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., the national counting officer, Sir Philip Allen can order a recount. in those circumstances every county counting officer would have to be contacted, his people who had gone home would have to be brought back, the hall would have to be reopened and the votes would have to be counted again. That is a difficulty. One of the great merits of a central count is that in this exercise a recount could take place much more effectively and quickly. It would be difficult, but it could be done.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the suggestion I made to take account of that difficulty in a local recount?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend made a useful suggestion. I imagine that if the local result were close there would be a local recount, but whether there is to be a national recount cannot be decided until the aggregate of the votes is known. If, in the aggregate, the majority were 1 per cent. or even 2 per cent., the national counting officer would no doubt order a recount. That is a matter which is in his discretion and nobody else's.
I explained the effect of Amendment No. 49 in my speech last night, but not many hon. Members were present. I think it is true to say, as my hon. Friend said, that hardly any hon. Members who had not been in the Chamber understood what they were voting for. I do not complain of that. Hon. Members are very busy, Bills move very quickly—or reasonably quickly—and amendments are complicated. Frequently we all vote for amendments without understanding them. Almost everyone, including, from the look of today's Order Paper, my hon. Friend, believed that the amendment provided for a local count as well as a local declaration. In view of that and of the views expressed in the debate yesterday, I got to work early this morning contacting counties. I rang up two county clerks, one of a large rural county and the other of a large metropolitan county, to see whether they could do a local count.
One problem is that counties have not counted before. They have no experience of counting unless the clerk has previously served in an authority which has counted. There is a peculiar problem in Scotland, where the new regions do not take over until 16th May—about three weeks before the referendum. I explained previously to the House that in Scotland there are considerable problems, which I do not underestimate. I sent Sir Philip Allen there to talk to local authorities, and he came back and said that he thought they could do it—although only just, and perhaps with some help from the Scottish Office.
Nevertheless, as a result of all our inquiries today, I believe that the county authorities can do this job. In view of


the views expressed in the House and the misunderstanding in the minds of a great many hon. Members, I am prepared to accept this principle.
I must point out that all the amendments on this subject appearing on the Order Paper are defective in one way or another. If hon. Members will withdraw their amendments, I undertake to ensure that an amendment is tabled in another place which will provide for the counting to be done in counties, so that there is a county count and a county declaration of results. I have tried to meet the wishes of the House, and in view of that fact I hope that hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Goodhart: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say what arrangements he is making for counting and announcing the Service votes?

Mr. Short: If there is a county count the Service votes will have to be announced separately, as I think I said in my speech yesterday. One of the advantages of a national count is that the Service votes would go into the aggregate, but in a county count they would be announced separately.

Mr. Emery: How will the right hon. Gentleman overcome the problem, which was so central to the argument he put yesterday, of preventing the results being announced locally at different times, or leaking out the moment the count is known? That would mean a slow presentation of the results before all the figures were brought together. That was a strong point which he put to the Committee yesterday.

Mr. Short: That is one of the problems. For once, the hon. Gentleman supports my previous attitude. I have left him in the lurch now, and I am sorry about that. There is a problem here, which the House has faced me with in the amendment. It would be undesirable for the results to come out over a few days. I do not yet know how we shall get over that problem but we are working on it. I think that it will be possible to ensure that no counties start the count before the next morning at a given hour and that no results are announced before a certain hour that evening. That arrangement will not

entirely get over the problem, but it will ensure that the announcements are telescoped into a relatively short period.
In a General Election the announcement of the Orkney vote is usually delayed. It would help if we could ensure that the results were announced within a maximum period of 24 hours, but there are difficulties and dangers in a long delay with results coming out in dribs and drabs. We shall do our best to minimise those difficulties. That is one of the difficulties with which I have been landed by the decision of the Committee yesterday.

Mr. English: Does my right hon. Friend consider that metropolitan districts can be appropriately considered as being equivalent to non-metropolitan counties in terms of size? Does he agree that that would speed up the count in London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, for example?

Sir David Renton: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Lord President for having kept an open mind and for having come clean with us. He has revealed that although he was in favour of the administrative arrangements for a central count he thought it was possible to do the counting locally. He is now prepared to follow up logically the amendment that was moved yesterday by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), which was carried by a large majority.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that all the amendments on the Notice Paper are defective in drafting. That is not surprising in the circumstances. We have done our best. I ask to stake a claim as regards the method of drafting which I have put forward, which differs from that of the other amendments. It is an important difference in principle. I suggest that what is now to be done should be done by Order in Council rather than by the counting officer appointed by the Secretary of State. The other amendments all suggest that the arrangements should be made by the counting officer. There might be a difficulty for the House because if anything goes wrong the Lord President may well say "This is a matter for the counting officer and I am not answerable for it." However, if we proceed by Order in Council the matter rests with the Lord President. I do not ask


for an answer this evening but I think that it is a matter worth bearing in mind.
What the right hon. Gentleman has said has still left open one or two important matters. He told us that the counties have no experience of elections. All I can say is that there are people in the counties in England and Wales, and in the regions in Scotland, who have great experience of being returning officers. They will have to arrange the local polling stations, the ballot boxes and other matters. It is not asking very much more of them to arrange those matters centrally within each county or region.
It is a fact that the DOHO, the Dear Old Home Office, has no experience of conducting a poll involving 20 million or 30 million votes and collecting those votes at one point. Therefore, we have reason for rejoicing that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this decision. However, I am very worried by the remarks about recounts that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friend the Member for Belper. This is a national referendum with only one constituency. To my mind it is unthinkable that there should be claims to have recounts in counties or in regions. Who will make the claims?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Members of Parliament.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman interrupts from his seat and says "Members of Parliament", but as far as I know there will be no special status given to Members of Parliament in the referendum or in the counts which are to take place locally. Of course, a local recount would be irrelevant to the national result. It is only a national recount that could have any relevance. Who will have the right, if there is to be such a right, to claim a national recount? Will that right be possessed by the leaders of the parties or by the well-known protagonists in the House on either side of the argument? Are different members of the Cabinet going to have that right? I think that we should know the position now.
I very much doubt whether any arrangements for a recount could possibly be workable in the circumstances which we are now envisaging. I doubt whether there could be any feasible arrangements made either for a local

recount, which I believe to be irrelevant, or for a national recount. As the Lord President indicated, if we were to have a national recount it would mean a recount in every place where the original count had taken place. I do not think that that is a practicable proposition.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that I pointed that out to the Committee three times yesterday and that his right hon. and hon. Friends did not recognise the point?

7.15 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: I am obliged to the Minister. As Members of Parliament we all have duties which take us out of the Chamber from time to time. I have had such a duty in the past two days. That is why I have not been able to attend the whole of the debate. If any apology is needed to the Front Bench on either side of the House it is readily forthcoming. There is a good deal more in the way of practical decisions that needs to be considered. I hope that the practical difficulties will be ironed out.
I must add that on Second Reading I interrupted the hon. Member for Rox-burgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) when he was arguing in favour of a constituency count and was complaining about the proposed central count. I asked him whether he considered that in that context constitutional principle and administrative convenience were in serious conflict. At that time I felt that a central count was the right thing. However, the more I thought about the administrative problems involved the more I realised that constitutional principle would have to give way. I felt I should say that in courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, and to indicate to the House that on that point I have changed my mind.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I reecho what has been said in the way of appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Lord President for indicating that the Government will introduce an amendment in another place to put the principle into the Bill that counting should take place locally rather than centrally.
I take this opportunity to press my right hon. Friend further on three points. First, will there be one counting place for each of the areas for which the results are to be separately declared? Secondly.


will that place be within the area to which it relates? Thirdly, will the announcement of the result for the area take place at that place?

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that I was not in my place when the Lord President rose to speak. By way of reward I thank him very much for gracefully giving way on this point.

Mr. David Steel: I am overwhelmed by the brevity of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. May I echo my thanks for what the Leader of the House has decided to do? It is always the sign of a good Leader of the House when he is willing to look again at something, however fundamentally he may have opposed a particular view on an earlier occasion. Hon. Members knew what they were voting for last night, despite their confusion. Their wishes were not in doubt, the right hon. Member met those wishes and we are grateful to him.
I have one tiny regret in this matter. It is that in the course of yesterday's debate we never did learn from the right hon. Gentleman how the Earls Court escapade was to be conducted. We never learned, and no doubt we never shall. That will go down as one of the great "might have beens" in British constitutional history. I am sorry that we were never let into that secret, but that is a minor complaint.
On a serious note, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the problems in Scotland. If in the course of his consultations he finds it more convenient to put sheriffs, rather than returning officers in control. I am sure the House will not mind if he substantially alters the provisions in that respect.
I should like to deal shortly with the question of a recount. I assume that the only possibility of a recount would be where the total number of votes was wildly out and was not reconciled with the final count. However, I do not think there could be a recount because the result in an area was close. I gather that in Norway the results came out area by area. Such a procedure would heighten the interest in what is going on, and I see no reason why that should not happen.
I repeat my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, but my mind will continue to boggle over the possibilities of what might have happened at Earls Court.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I too, wish to join in thanking the Leader of the House for taking this sound decision. Had the decision not been taken, I believe that there would have been a good deal of fuss about what had or had not been decided. I think that it can be said that reason and common sense have prevailed. I do not think the Scottish people would have accepted a result in the referendum, for or against the Common Market, had they not been in a position to see how they voted. It will be necessary to have a declaration in Scotland, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted in principle area or regional declarations.
There is one other matter that remains to be dealt with—namely, the question of scrutineers. It has been said that Members of Parliament may have no special locus in this matter, but it was said yesterday that under various orders hon. Members would be entitled to attend the central count. When the right hon. Gentleman comes to look at the orders in regularising these procedures, I hope that he will allow Members of Parliament and others to act as scrutineers in this important referendum.
With those few words of thanks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5—

Mr. Speaker: We shall deal with that in a moment.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I, too, wish to add my voice to what has been said, especially as hon. Members have asked for an interpretation of what happened last night. A little earlier in this discussion I heard the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, say that he had told us "several times tomorrow". That is a new version of Nye Bevan's remark—in other words, why look at the book when one can look into the crystal ball!
I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Lord President for what he has done. We have aired a number of problems in these discussions. There was an amendment yesterday which was not selected


and which dealt with a number of important minutiae—such as the question of scrutineers, recounts, the count itself and the locus of Members of Parliament. I wonder whether the right thing to do is to let the other place sort these matters out and then for this House to examine the various orders which are to be laid. It might be useful to have the views of the Leader of the House on this point, but I thank him again for what he has done.

Mr. Emery: I am sorry to have to bring a note of disagreement into this discussion. I condemn the Leader of the House for what he has done in compounding the nonsense of the Bill. Indeed, I tried to help him by tabling an amendment, which I believe was the only amendment that was technically correct.
I wish to make three points. We pay great lip-service to the thoroughness and accuracy of the count and of the work done by counting agents at every General Election. We all know that it is the tradition for a successful Member of Parliament to make a speech thanking all those who have been responsible for that count. I have fought the last eight General Elections and one by-election. The degree of efficiency between counts in different places depends on tradition, and of course majorities in various areas vary considerably. In one case I had a majority of 22,000 against me and on another occasion 21,000 votes in my favour. On yet another occasion I was returned by the huge majority of 10 votes. In the case where there was a majority of 22,000 against me we lost 326 votes. The returning officer, however, turned to one of his colleagues, Mr. Charles Key, and said "Charlie, you don't mind giving those to Peter, do you?" Therefore my vote went up by 7 per cent., because those votes were added to my total in the General Election. I would add that the returning officer in question is dead, and I am in no way slandering anybody. But that is not the degree of accuracy we could possibly allow in the referendum count.
The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) suggested that we should have automatic recounts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), as a former Member of Parliament for Reading, will know that in that

town there have always been close counts, and there is almost an automatic recount the first time round. But that does not stop a number of recounts after that. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth went through that unpleasant experience over a period of many hours. The efficiency of the proceedings, particularly if carried out by people who have not had to handle these occasions before, might give rise to a much greater problem than has been realised so far.
It will be almost impossible to keep these matters secret. I suppose that if there were a central count and the totals were brought into the various rooms with a few people present, one might be able to maintain a degree of secrecy, but it will be extremely difficult. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say how many counts are envisaged. Certainly if there are a number of them, the chances of keeping information secret are very small.
The House will need to consider a number of problems on that score. The Press will be out to discover what the result is in every single count, and the Press probably will have the result before the Prime Minister. No doubt there will be leaks. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that this will heighten the proceedings. It is much more likely to turn it into a farce.
When considering the factors involved in local council elections, the chances of the scrutineers being available for a recount are very small. I believe that the Lord President made a slip when he said that if the result were close there would have to be a recount. It is not the closeness of the result in individual counties or regions that matters. What matters is the total of the votes when they have been brought to the central area. Therefore, the count in every area must be as accurate and as efficient as that at the centre.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I said this. Let me take an extreme case of a county with a majority of one. I cannot imagine the returning officer allowing that result to stand without a recount. The votes would he recounted.

Mr. Emery: It is just as important to have a recount when the majority is 50,000, because what matters is the accuracy of each count before the votes are brought to the central area. There may be a difference of one or two votes. It is immaterial whether the majority is 500 or 5,000 votes.
The Leader of the House is falling into a party political judgment. This is not a party political matter. The accuracy of each counting area must be established completely and absolutely. Therefore, I believe that it will be much more difficult to keep the tight control and the military precision, which were referred to by the Lord President, when the counts are spread. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should have held to his original position, because that would have ensured central control, a uniform standard and an efficient count, which will not be achieved with the system of county votes.

Mr. Lee: I was out of the Chamber when the Lord President made his concession regarding the vote count. I am gratified that he has chosen to do so. He has relieved many of our fears, not least those regarding the security aspect, which has tended to be overlooked.
It seems that one or two loose ends must be tied up. There are two reasons why a recount is needed in an election. It often occurs at the behest of the returning officer. It happens sometimes because of a discrepancy in the ballot count, because people have not added up properly, because ballots have been lost, or for some other mechanical or arithmetical reason. It sometimes happens during local elections and General Elections in constituencies where the result is plainly obvious and never in doubt, since the returning officer has a duty in law to ensure that the return is justifiable arithmetically as well as in the sense that all the doubtful papers have been satisfactorily evaluated.
A recount sometimes takes place where the result in an election is so close that human error may have accounted for a difference in the result. That is where the right of a candidate in an election becomes important, since a recount is normally requested at the behest of a candidate or his agent. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will recall the

Reading marathon of 11 years ago when the returning officer ordered another count, even though the ballot paper count was correct, because of the narrow majority.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider providing the right to demand a recount where there is a close result. It seems to me that we have the makings of a solution here. Under Clause 3 of the Bill the two umbrella organisations are vested with a statutory status in relation to the campaign. Orders could be made vesting in them the right to nominate scrutineers and the right for those scrutineers to request a recount Although no candidate at an ordinary election has the right to demand a recount, it is normally granted at least once if asked for, even though the margin is substantial. Nevertheless, somebody should have the right to ask for a recount. I suggest that it would be a logical extension of the functions of Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign that they should have those rights enshrined in relation to this procedure. We would be much happier if that were the situation.
I do not follow the hon. Member for Honiton when he says that every result matters in terms of the recount. There is merit in breaking down the count. The task will still be difficult, because the number of votes cast per county in the referendum will be larger than that cast per constituency. At least the proposed arrangement will be more easily accomplished than the enormous task which would otherwise have been involved in a central count.
It is important that at each place where the count takes place everybody should be satisfied that it will be done accurately and fairly. Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will speak about the right to appoint persons representing the two organisations. Perhaps he will also give guidance to the counting officers as to the procedures to be adopted where there is a close result. It might be of assistance to Parliament if my right hon Friend gave an indication, which would be in no way binding, as to what he would regard as a narrow result, and the percentage below which it would be reasonable for anyone to ask for a recount because of the closeness of the result.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I share the views of most hon. Members in being grateful to the Leader of the House for having decided to make an honest woman of the amendment, which was agreed to by an overwhelming majority.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clarify two matters. One concerns the question of the recount. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is right. All that matters is whether the overall national majority is more than a quarter of a million votes. If it is closer than a quarter of a million votes, there should be a recount all the way across the board. If it is bigger than one quarter of a million votes either way, there should be no need for a recount. Even if there is a majority of one in Leicestershire or 10 in Devon, that is neither here nor there.
The other point concerns the declaration. Under the original plan, the declaration, as we sec from Command 6004, "Referendum Order 1975", was to be made by the counting officer telling the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister telling the House of Commons. That is inappropriate bearing in mind the amendment that has been made.
The original idea was that, while there would be a local result, there would not be a local count. If there were no local count, the declaration would not be local. The declaration of the local result would have to go to Earls Court.
The Leader of the House said that the count should be in the locality. However, there is nothing in the amendment which provides that the declaration should be in the locality at the time. I should be grateful if the Minister could, as it were. dot the i's and cross the t's by saying that the declaration—an order will have to be laid—will not be one declaration, but that each returning officer will make the declaration in the county or region after the count has been completed.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: I should like to ask the Lord President to comment on what will happen in a constituency such as mine, which is by no means unique. I gather that about 70 constituencies are split by counties through redistribution. My constituency is in Humberside and Lincoln. When the right hon. Gentleman drafts the amendment which is to be moved in another

place, will he consider how the count will be carried out in a constituency like Louth which is divided between two counties? Where will the ballot boxes go? Where will the votes be counted? Of which county shall we be regarded as being members?

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the generous attitude shown by the Leader of the House and the concrete proposal that he has made to introduce his own better amendment in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

GRANTS TOWARDS COST OF CAMPAIGN

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in page 4, line 8, at end insert:
(3)(A) The breach of any of the conditions specified by the Lord President under clause 3(2) of this Act shall be deemed to be an offence.
(B) Any person or organisation shall be liable on conviction for an offence committed under this Act to a fine not exceeding £10,000.
(c) No prosecution may be brought under this Act without the consent of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. George Thomas): With this we will take the manuscript amendment in page 4, line 8, at end insert: —
(3) The Lord President shall apply the conditions specified in subsection (2) above not only to the organisations named in subsection (1) above but also to any other corporate person or organisation receiving or spending for the purposes of the referendum campaign more than £1,000.

Mr. Emery: This is the second roneoed or xeroxed sheet, in case any hon. Member is unable to follow the different pieces of paper that we have had in covering the Bill on Report.
I find myself in a strange position. Not being a lawyer, I find myself entering into the legal sphere and getting into problems by trying to ensure that there should be some sanction against any offences.
The House will realise that Clause 3 clearly sets out that the Lord President of the Council may make grants to certain organisations and that, having done so, he shall specify conditions. These conditions include the keeping and the


making available for publication of accounts and such other information as he may think fit.
It appears that if persons who are to receive this money do not comply with the conditions specified by the Lord President, then, other than perhaps arraigning them in this House as was suggested, there is no way of controlling or having sanctions against them.
It was argued that this was perfectly all right because the Home Secretary was a joint chairman of one organisation and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was an officer of the other organisation.
7.45 p.m.
It seems to me that both the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will be pretty busy campaigning. One will still be a senior Minister. I cannot see them having much control over the way that books are kept or of meeting the direct conditions that the Lord President may specify. Therefore, it seemed imperative to put some sanction into the requirements of the conditions which would be set.
I have done that in a simple way. First, I suggest that a breach of the conditions specified by the Lord President shall be deemed to be an offence. That seems fairly logical.
Secondly, I suggest that
Any person or organisation shall be liable on conviction for an offence … to a fine not exceeding £10,000.
I put the figure at that amount because I want it to be a high court rather than a magistrates' court offence. That seems to fit in with normal electoral procedure under which such provisions are dealt with in the high court. That proposal would achieve that end.
Thirdly, because it is a political matter and there should be some responsibility somewhere—we do not want this dealt with in a minor way—I suggest that
No prosecution may be brought … without the consent of the Attorney-General".
I have suggested a fairly simple sanctions method. I recommend it to parliamentary draftsmen in their drafting of other legislation because it can be read and understood. That is not normally so easy when dealing with liability or sanctions clauses in most legislation.
We all hope that these provisions will not be necessary. They are certainly not meant as criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury or any organisation with which he may be associated. It just seemed sensible to have such a sanction. I put it in this way because I want it to be applied only if there is a major breach. That is why any breach should be considered a high court offence, brought only with the consent of the Attorney-General, with provision for a large fine if it is proved to be a breach of the conditions.
This should not be a political matter. I hope that it makes sense. It was with the wish of trying to make the Bill slightly better that I proposed the amendment.

Mr. English: I should like to refer to the manuscript amendment in my name which has been selected for discussion with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).
In the circumstances, it may be helpful if I read it:
The Lord President shall apply the conditions specified in subsection (2) above"—
those are the conditions relating to accounting, and so forth—
not only to the organisations named in subsection (1) above"—
the two umbrella organisations—
but also to any other corporate person or organisation receiving or spending for the purposes of the referendum campaign more than £1,000.
The Leader of the House will recall that he, and certainly publicly the Prime Minister, originally said that we were to have a declaration of expenditure by all the participants. The Bill does not provide for that. It merely provides for a declaration of expenditure by the two umbrella organisations. Therefore, any company, or trade union for that matter, can spend as much as it likes on the purposes of the referendum. It can shower its employees, or members in the case of a trade union, with documentation representing its points of view. That expenditure will not be declared and included in the return of accounts since under the Bill the return of accounts is merely a condition of the grant to the two umbrella organisations. In the same sort of way anyone could create a front organisation to receive and spend moneys for the purpose of the referendum campaign.
There could be, for example, Britain in Europe (No. 2) or the National Referendum Campaign (No. 2) which could receive and spend as much money as they liked without accounting for it because they would not be recipients of the £125,000 grant. This is an unsatisfactory position. We are liable to end up with a system in which organisations are accounting for sums which might not be the greatest part of expenditure on the campaign.
The Lord President could apply the conditions he has determined in the earlier subsection to everybody spending money. But to apply them to everybody in the literal sense would seem excessive. For example, individuals do not matter in this context. If an individual wishes to engage in political propaganda, that is his right. I have excluded from the provisions individuals and organisations and companies which are spending small amounts which it is not necessary to include. I have chosen a lower limit of £1,000.
The object is simply to see that any major expenditure by major corporate bodies or non-corporate bodies such as trade unions, but bodies rather than individuals, is declared. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able, if not to accept the amendment, at least to produce something like it at a later stage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): We respect the thought behind the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). We recognise that it is a matter of concern to this House that the taxpayers 'money should be spent properly and that we should take whatever steps are practical and realistic to ensure that this is achieved. However, I am a little surprised at the amendment which I do not believe would be in the best interests of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President announced in a Written Answer on Monday, and described to the House last night, the conditions imposed upon the umbrella organisations. Those conditions have been clearly laid out in letters to them, and this was a matter which, quite rightly, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised

last night and on which I think I gave clarification.
The organisations have agreed these conditions. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and Sir Con O'Neill have put their signatures to letters confirming that they accept them. It is now in no one's interest for these two organisations to break these conditions. Surely no one imagines that these gentlemen will lend themselves to signing bills for money knowing that they will have to produce accounts, or see that the money is properly spent and the accounts properly produced.
It is difficult to envisage a situation in which they would have money left over anyway, and if that were to arise I could not see it finding its way to Transport House, Tory Central Office or any other political organisation. One other point is worth making. We have great respect for these two gentlemen, but if something were to happen to them I find it hard to believe that they would be replaced by anybody less reputable.
My second point for doubt over the amendment is that a committee is being formed to look into the desirability of giving public funds to political parties, and if it thinks it desirable it will devise schemes for doing so. That independent committee will examine what is being done in other countries and will think carefully about the safeguards and penalties which might be necessary.
In this case, given the reputable nature of the two organisations, the people running them and the manner in which we can call them to account in this House, we should not prejudice the recommendations of the committee by taking the rather drastic step of making it an offence punishable by a heavy fine to break the conditions upon which the money is being given.

Mr. Emery: The Parliamentary Secretary said that neither of the gentlemen concerned would break the conditions. There can be no harm in having such conditions in the Bill, because they will never have to be applied. I am sure, therefore, that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Price: That is the best one I have heard all week.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Again, I appreciate the care with which my hon. Friend has approached the subject, but I think that he is asking more than is practicable. We are now in the area of control of all campaign expenditure—

Mr. English: Not all.

Mr. Price: There is certainly an element of control, which we discussed this morning. My objection to the amendment is that it is unworkable. We have laid down certain rules and we must demand declarations from the two campaigning organisations. We think this is reasonable, because they are dealing with a fairly substantial sum of public money. It seems to me to be another matter to demand that organisations which are not getting public money should be required to keep accounts in a special form, to have them ready in two months and to subject them to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Moreover these organisations will be required by the amendment to produce accounts in this special form, covering the period since 26th March—the date of publication of the Bill. They will have had no warning about that, and I fear that it will create a real problem for them.
The Government carefully considered the possibility of including such provisions, and for a variety of reasons decided it was not on. Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend an example of the difficult ground we are on. A number of organisations are active in this way at General Elections, and we think we have control over them. In practice, we have no control. In my constituency, in 1970, I was defending a majority of 409 when two organisations plastered the town of Rugby with posters and advertisements in the local newspapers and goodness knows where else. One was for free enterprise and the other one concerned the "pound in your pocket". The effect was catastrophic from their point of view. My majority went up 700 per cent., and I have not seen either of them since. I have doubled my majority since then and they, presumably, have gone to greener pastures.
I accept that we would all like to exercise some such control at General Elec-

tions, but there are many problems, and I suspect that such action would be equally difficult to take during the referendum campaign.

Mr. English: Surely my hon. Friend realises that this situation arises only because of the way in which the Representation of the People Acts are worded. Organisations are liable to formidable penalties if they plaster a town with posters naming one of the candidates. There are also political penalties. The law does work, and organisations do not get away with breaking it. It is only because of the wording of the legislation that these outside bodies do what they like.

Mr. Price: I accept that that is the position, but it does not alter the fact that an organisation like Aims of Industry can spend large sums of money in the period leading up to campaigns, and in my experience other organisations do the same thing. Whether or not the law is working properly, they get away with it. They have done so in the past and I have no doubt that they will attempt to do in the future.
In spite of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm and attention to detail, I can see great difficulties if his proposal is carried out, and there would be scope for snooping during and after the polls. We want the biggest turnout for the referendum and we want the public to take an active and enthusiastic interest in the campaign.
My hon. Friend's amendment might well inhibit people from taking part, and that would be undesirable. I must ask the Committee to reject both amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 5, leave out line 3 and insert:
'The United Kingdom is at present a member of the European Community in accordance with treaties ratified by Parliament, which has now approved the results of the Government's renegotiation '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to take the following amendments: No. 16, in page 5, leave out lines 3 to 5.
No. 17, in page 5, line 3, leave out from 'announced' to 'COMMUNITY' in line 7 and insert:
'that, as a result of their re-negotiation of the UK's terms of membership of the European Economic Community, they consider Britain should remain a member of the EEC. Parliament has approved that decision.

DO YOU WANT THE UNITED KINGDOM TO STAY IN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC'.

Mr. Macmillan: My amendment, which is also in the name of two Liberal Members, is to alter the preamble to the question on the ballot paper. The purpose is to make the United Kingdom's situation at the time of the referendum clear on the ballot paper.
The first fact that I wish to bring out is that the United Kingdom is presently a member of the European Community, and that if nothing is done it will remain so, that to stay in requires no action by the Government or Parliament, but that to leave the Community does.
My first attempt to achieve that objective was to alter the wording of the question, asking Do you think that the United Kingdom should now ignore its treaty obligations and leave the European Community?". That was inspired by a speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), in which he spoke so eloquently and accurately about the United Kingdom's legal and treaty position in relation not to the referendum but to the facts of our membership. On looking at it again, I realised that this new version had certain disadvantages. It was an accurate and fair description of the situation, but in the current climate of opinion in the Labour Party that degree of accuracy and fairness was likely to be judged in itself as being biased.
There was also the practical problem that it was too late to rephrase the question in that way, suggesting that positive action was required to leave the Community. To ask "Do you think we should leave the European Community?" rather than "Do you think we should stay in?" would have been more accurate, but I accept that the phraseology of the White Paper had gained such wide currency that to reverse it would merely confuse people. But I still think there should be a minimum statement of facts on the ballot paper.
These points can be developed by hon. Members and others in the course of the campaign. The preamble on the ballot paper will not affect those who go into the polling booth firmly committed one way or the other. But there will be people who will have found the arguments fine, who will have found it difficult to come to a decision, and who will perhaps be uncertain as they enter the polling booth. They may find it difficult to remember some of the arguments. They, in particular, are entitled to have a ballot paper that helps them in a factual way, as the ballot paper does in a General Election.
For many years ballot papers at elections carried no indication of party affiliation. They were neutral ballot papers. But over the years it came to be recognised that, perhaps particularly in local government elections, with many names on the ballot paper, this was confusing to the electorate. Therefore, the names of the parties to which the candidates belonged were added.
There should be on the ballot paper for the referendum a statement that the United Kingdom is a member of the Community, that—as is already said on the ballot paper—the Government have re-negotiated the terms of membership, and that the House of Commons has approved the Government's recommendations that it should accept those terms.
At that stage in my thinking I tried to add to what was on the ballot paper one sentence at the beginning, that the United Kingdom is a member of the European Community in accordance with treaties duly ratified by Parliament. I then continued with the words already there, adding a third sentence stating that the House of Commons had approved the Government's recommendation to continue the United Kingdom's membership on those terms. I then went on to the question as it now is.
I thought that that was a reasonable and sensible way of meeting the point. Clearly, the Liberal Party had the same thought, as Liberal Members tabled a similar amendment altering the first sentence of the preamble to read "Parliament has approved the results of the Government's renegotiation" and so on, then following the words already there. This brought in the fact of parliamentary approval, but left out the point of the


existing membership of the Community. My amendment adds that. The only part of my original concept which is omitted is the fact that the Government recommended to the House the acceptance of the terms they had renegotiated and our continuing membership of the Community.
I do not now seek to put that in, because I hope that its omission will make it easier for the Lord President to accept the amendment. In the light of the disagreements which the Government have accepted within their own ranks and their own party I do not think it reasonable to expect the fact of the Government's recommendation to the House to appear on the ballot paper. But I think it right that the fact that the House has approved the terms should be shown there.
We now have the minimum for a proper preamble to the question. There is a good deal to be said for the case which the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell) will no doubt argue for having no preamble, for having a preamble. If there is to be a straight question, it should contain the fact of United Kingdom membership, the fact that that membership is due to the treaties having been ratified by Parliament, and the fact that Parliament has approved the result of the present Government's renegotiations. The Leader of the House should feel able to accept this.
The present form reflects, entirely accurately, the total lack of leadership given by the Prime Minister and the Government on this matter, despite the fact that it is officially Government policy that Britain should remain a member of the EEC. The people have come to expect this lack of leadership from the Government and the Prime Minister, but they are entitled to expect something better from Parliament. They are entitled to a statement giving the view of the House of Commons on the ballot paper when they come to register their votes. They are entitled to know how a majority of those whom they elected nation-wide to represent them have voted on the issue on which they are now being asked to vote. Otherwise there would be an even greater abdication of parliamentary responsibility than the referendum implies. That is the reason why I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Powell: Towards the end of the speech of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) I thought that there could be no common ground between us whatever. Then I was astonished, as I was delighted, to hear him declare that he would be happy, supposing his own proposal were not agreeable, to fall in with mine.
I was surprised, because the two proposals seem to set out from entirely different assumptions about the purpose of a ballot paper. Let me state my assumption. I believe that a ballot paper should be as neutral as it can possibly be made and that, therefore, we must eschew every avoidable addition to the ballot paper, since all words have some kind of colour. Therefore, the more words that are put on to the ballot paper the more danger there is that for some, at any rate, of those people who are confronted with it, they will import a bias one way or the other inconsistent with the principle of neutrality.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was some analogy with our recent practice, on the parliamentary ballot paper, of inserting the party affiliations of the respective candidates. In this case the analogue to the party affiliation is already on the ballot paper, in the form of the words "Yes" and "No". Those are the equivalent of the words "Conservative" or "Labour", or whatever it may be, on the parliamentary ballot paper. Therefore, so far as guidance to the elector is concerned, as to which slot is the one which corresponds with his intentions, that is totally carried out by the words "Yes" and "No", following the question itself.
I ask what possible advantage there can be in the sentence in smaller type in lines 3 to 5? As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is hardly a bracing and stirring summons to vote one way or the other, or even to vote at all. It conveys no information which could be useful to the elector, even in deciding, at any rate rationally, in which of the two boxes to put his cross.
8.15 p.m.
If that were all, perhaps it would not be so serious for those three lines to remain on the ballot paper, but I would argue that they do import prejudice, not intentionally of course, but unavoidably.


In one respect, at any rate, they are not even objectively factual, for many hon. Members—hon. Members who take opposite views on the question "Yes" or "No"—would not agree that there has been a renegotiation. Many hon. Members would argue that in the natural sense of the term "renegotiation", such a renegotiation has not taken place at all. However, the mere fact that the sentence beginning with the words "The Government" stands on the ballot paper is, I submit, in itself a cause of bias. and it produces a potential effect upon the mind of the elector reading the ballot paper.
We are, Bagehot assured us, a deferential nation. At any rate, some of us are defferential. To any elector with a notion of the rule of law, of law and order and obedience to lawfully constituted authority who starts reading his ballot paper, the very fact that it starts with a statement that the Government have done this or that is an implication that the Government expect of him, in what he is doing—as the Government, and not just as a partisan in this matter—that he should take one choice rather than the other. There would be little doubt, if he got so far, which choice he would think was associated with the authority and with the establishment of government itself. Proceeding to read, he would conclude that if the Government had announced the results of their renegotiation, the Government regarded the renegotiation as satisfactory or, at any rate, as in some sense complete.
This is the Government's proposition, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is not the intention to put upon the ballot paper anything which conveys a particle of the case which it is the business of the two parties to the dispute to argue. As much information as possible must be brought to the attention of the voters, and all kinds of arrangements by the Government themselves and unofficially are being made to maximise the information available to voters. Of course, the tendentious arguments ought to be put, as in any other political context, to the electorate. I have no objection to that, to put it mildly. But we would all be agreed that the one place where no particle of that should appear is on the ballot paper.
My submission is that despite the apparently antiseptic phraseology in which the sentence is couched, the fact of its being there and the whole series of words which occur in that sentence are such as unmistakably to exercise an influence one way or the other.
I want to put a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President. In doing so, I must say that I am fortified by the concluding words of the right hon. Member for Farnham, because if he and I can converge from such different stand-points it may well be that there is force in the contention. I put this to the Lord President with the more encouragement, because he has shown, and has greatly endeared himself to the House by showing, that he is prepared right to the last stage of the enactment of this Bill to go on thinking about it in order to get the process as near perfect as we can make it.
The proposition that I put to him is simply that the sentence to which I have referred performs no necessary function—point one. No one would be deterred from voting, no one would be interfered with in voting, if that sentence were not there. It is superfluous.
The second proposition I put to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is not only superfluous but it is capable, for some electors, of importing a bias which would be in one direction rather than the other.
If I can carry the right hon. Gentleman with me on those two propositions I think that he will, in all sincerity, address his mind to the third—which is whether, even at this stage, we would not be succeeding in our intention of rendering this as neutral a ballot paper as possible—and therefore the referendum as free from objection and cavil as possible—if, at a later stage, after due consideration, he were prepared to simplify the ballot paper by removing this sentence altogether.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not rehearse the various arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), except to say that I agree with virtually everything he said.
By the same token, I do not find myself very much in agreement with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I think he works on a


premise that somehow this referendum is not the precedent that it is in our parliamentary life. Therefore, if it is that precedent, none of the rules which have applied to other ballot papers or other elections hold good.
What is more, the right hon. Gentleman used—no doubt it was a slip of the tongue—the expression "the electors". But we are not asking the British people as electors to make their decision in this referendum. We are asking them as voters to make a political decision which will, if it is passed in a negative form, turn the history of our country back by over two years.
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that what the Government have renegotiated—if they have, in fact, renegotiated the terms of our entry—and where they stand now are more or less the same as when the Conservative Party succeeded in winning our entry into Europe in 1972.
If that is so, it surely follows that this referendum has the curious ability to destroy an Act of Parliament, of two Governments, and therefore not to reinforce a status quo or to take a progressive step forward but to reverse a policy of our nation, a policy that we have pursued for two and a half years. That is, by anybody's token, a fairly grave step, and it involves—we all know this—the dishonouring of our signature on the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman can disagree if he will, but that is my reading of it and I hold to my view. In those circumstances, when we are asking the people, as never before, to make a decision about the future of their country, we have the right—indeed, the duty—to tell the people, right up to the moment when they cast their vote, exactly where the Government of their country stand on this issue and where the Parliament of their country stands on it. [Interruption.] I say this to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden), who has intervened from a sedentary position: I do not want to influence the British public to do other than they wish to do, but I believe that I have the right as an elected representative for at least part of this country to tell them what the

Government—leaving aside party matters —and their Parliament have decided as being in the best interests of this country.
If I put those two facts, as I suggest in my amendment, before the British electorate and they still decide to vote "No", so be it. But they should at least know what their Government and Parliament think. That is what parliamentary leadership is all about.

Mr. Ovenden: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that the Government are to send a mini-version of their White Paper to everyone? Whatever is included on the ballot paper will not influence a person until he actually gets to the polling station. The hon. Gentleman must admit that he is attempting to influence people at the last possible moment. If that is what he wants he should tell us. He is entitled to try.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is our responsibility to tell the people because we are asking them an important question which will decide the future of our country.
The second part of my amended wording would replace "Do you think" with "Do you want". The very choice of the words "Do you think" implies that we do not want the people to make a statement which is a binding statement upon Parliament or Government. That is interesting in view of the debate we had this afternoon about how binding the referendum shall be.
If, as the Government say, it is binding, why do they ask the people just to express an opinion rather than to state a purpose? This is a point which comes from the anti-Marketeers in my constituency. I believe that they are right to demand a purpose from this referendum. We have the right to tell the people up to the last minute what the major issues are and what are the views of the Government and the parties. We have the same right to ask the people to express a purpose and not simply an opinion.

Mr. Jay: I strongly support the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and disagree with the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I take the view that this preamble ought to be omitted from the ballot paper.
I have two reasons for believing that. The first is that I believe the ballot paper should contain only a question and not statements. That is because any statement on a ballot paper must necesssarily be tendentious, since the inclusion of one statement necessarily implies that that statement has been selected and other possible statements have been omitted. Any selection of that kind is inevitably tendentious.
I object to the preamble because it contains the extraordinary expression "European Community". It is one of the odd and indefensible anomalies of this Bill for which we have had no rational defence that on page I we twice find the words "European Economic Community" but when we turn to the schedule we twice have the words "European Community". One or the other is right. There cannot be any justification for using one phrase in one part of the Bill and the other phrase in another part.
There is no such thing as the European Community. There is a European Economic Community and there are the European Economic Communities, all three of them, including the European Economic Community. There is no such thing and no such legal expression as the "European Community." The Minister produced no defence for having one phrase on one page and a different phrase on another. He did however produce an extraordinary excuse for the phrase "European Community".
The excuse was that that was a colloquial expression and the Minister thought he was justified in using it. If we are to be correct, as I believe we should be, the phrase should be "European Economic Community" as it is at the beginning of the Bill. If, on the other hand, we are not to be correct but we are to be colloquial we had better call it the Common Market, which is what everybody calls it. I compliment the Government upon at least having inserted that phrase in brackets.
There is no member of the British public—at least not one in a thousand—who colloquially refers to this organisation as the "European Community".
8.30 p.m.
Since, therefore, it is neither correct nor colloquial, and since it is different

from the phrase which occurs on page 1, I ask my right hon. Friend, whatever else he does about this preamble, to think again about the inclusion—and this is important since it occurs in the question itself—of this inadmissable and meaningless phrase "the European Community". My right hon. Friend has admitted today that it is possible to amend the Bill in the House of Lords. This phrase is not merely slovenly but, like the preamble itself, could be misleading. Some people could take the European Community to mean simply the European comity of nations, and nobody would wish this country to cease to be part of the European comity of nations.
I hope that no one in the Government has deliberately inserted this phrase for that reason. There is, clearly, no justification for it, and I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about its inclusion in the preamble.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: We have on offer three possible preambles—the one in the Bill and the two amendments—and we could go on cooking up thousands of others. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the three on offer are all statements of fact, we could produce many other statements of fact. If we are talking about the Common Market, it might be apposite, just before someone casts his vote, to remind him that last year the United Kingdom had a trade deficit of £2,000 million with the Common Market. That is a statement of fact which could hardly be doubted.
To say that is to draw attention to the obvious point that everything depends on who is doing the choosing of the preamble. Must we have a preamble at all? The onus of proof must be on those who want it. The rule for a ballot paper should be the maximum possible simplicity and the minimum number of words.
There can be only two reasons for having a preamble. The first is to try to influence the voter. The proper way to influence the voter is not through the ballot paper but through the literature, speeches, and so on, of the respective protagonists, which people hear, read and receive in the weeks preceding the referendum.
The second possible reason is to remind the people what the referendum is about.


That seems to be a piece of great arrogance. Surely people know that this is a referendum about our membership of the Common Market. To have a preamble at all seems to be to be equivalent, at a General Election, to having a poster stuck up in the polling booth with a picture of one of the candidates on it.
The referendum is about people making a decision on a major principle. We entrust the people with that decision. Surely we can entrust them with knowing that this is a referendum about our membership of the Common Market.

Mr. Edward Short: Before I discuss the amendments to the schedule I should like to explain briefly why the Government have proposed the form of words on the ballot paper set out in the Bill.
First, we want it to be as simple as possible and in a form which is familiar to voters from their experience of elections. We want the ballot paper to look as much as possible like the normal ballot paper to which people are accustomed. That excludes complicated preambles, and it excludes also involved questions and a variety of alternative answers.
The second requirement is that it must be fair. Let me remind the House that at the time when we published the White Paper on the referendum at the end of February we did not know what the Government's recommendation was going to be. As long ago as that we proposed a form of words which, except in one respect—about which I shall say something in a moment, and to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred—was identical with the form now before the House.
There has not been and there must not be any attempt to load the wording one way or another. The purpose of the Government throughout has been to he scrupulously fair in this matter; for, if the wording is not generally regarded as fair, the result of the referendum could well be less widely accepted. I have said throughout the whole of our discussions that our purpose must be to secure the widest possible acceptance of the result. whatever it is. I believe that we have got the wording about right.
I now turn to the amendments. For the convenience of the Committee I shall deal with them in the order in which they impinge on the proposed wording on the

ballot paper. First, the Liberal Party and the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) want to include in the preamble references to treaty obligations and to the verdict of Parliament on the Government's renegotiation. That, in my judgment, would be patently unfair. The verdict of Parliament is only one fact that might be brought to the voters' attention, and it is not of unique importance. I remind the House that Parliament has indicated its support for our membership on at least four major occasions in the last 10 years, but, in spite of that, the country has remained deeply divided. That is why we are now seeking the views of the people.
The amendment also refers to Parliament's ratification of the treaties providing for our membership of the EEC. As I said yesterday, Parliament retains, and Parliament will always retain—I hope—sovereignty to take our country out of the Community. I hope that there is no dispute about that.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) talked about dishonouring our signature on the treaty. Surely he agrees that inherent in our constitution there is the right of this Parliament to take the country out of the Community if we wish to do so.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that, whatever may apply in the domestic law of this country —undoubtedly Parliament has a right to abrogate the European Communities Act 1972 and thereby do away with the mechanism for enabling the country to perform its treaty obligations—there is no doubt that in international law it would be a breach of our treaty obligations even if Parliament here so decreed?

Mr. Short: If Parliament here decreed that we should come out of the Community, we would come out of the Community, and the directly applicable law of the Community would no longer apply to the law of this country if Parliament so decided. We could come out of the Community. There is no dispute about that, I hope.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has made a very important


point. I do not think that we can allow it to be passed off by the Lord President's saying that we can come out of the Community if we like, and that we shall not have broken treaty obligations. Clearly we shall be in breach of international law. That point needs clearing up.

Mr. Short: The whole premise on which the referendum is based is that if the country so decides the Government will immediately negotiate with the Community our withdrawal. That will be done. It is in the interests neither of our partners nor of ourselves that we should stay in as unwilling partners. If it were the wish of the country that we should come out, we should negotiate our withdrawal, so I see no need to include this wording in the preamble. Indeed, I believe that it could be positively misleading.
I appreciate the courteous way in which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made his case. He wants to omit the preamble altogether. Surely it is right to remind the voters in neutral language that the terms of our membership have been renegotiated and that the choice before them is not the same as it was two years ago.
The hon. Member for Newbury has an amendment to the preamble the effect of which is similar to that of the Liberal Party amendment. He also proposes the insertion of "Economic" in the wording of the question. My hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with this point last night. He explained that in framing the question we wished to combine the greatest possible accuracy with the greatest possible comprehensibility, and that we felt that the wording we have used—"European Community (The Common Market)"—met this requirement. I believe that we have satisfied the two criteria of simplicity and fairness. We have just about got it right. Therefore, I recommend the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend tell me why we have a different phrase here from that used on page 1 in the Bill, and why the phrase "the European Community", which has no correctness or authority whatever, should be used in the Bill? Will he not seriously reconsider this?

Mr. Short: "The European Community" was the form in which it first appeared. It was put in for simplicity. We believe that it is understood. However, having been requested to do so, I agreed to add the words "The Common Market". We now have "The European Community (The Common Market)". I do not believe that any elector in the country will now misunderstand this. Therefore, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Some of my hon. Friends are slightly puzzled as to why no Division was possible on the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Is it is not possible to have a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not possible now. I know of no request for a Division on that amendment. Mr. Speaker selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). There was no indication of any other Division. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to say a few words before we part with the Bill to another place.
In both General Elections last year we promised that if we were returned we would give the people of this country a chance to decide our membership of the European Community. That promise is now being kept. I hope that this referendum will settle the bitter and protracted disputes which have divided the country, the House and the political parties for a decade.
In framing the legislation we had two objectives. The first, which I mentioned a moment ago, was to secure the widest possible acceptance of the result. For that reason we believed, as I have said on a number of occasions during the debate, that we should stick as closely as possible to normal electoral procedures, except where those procedures were not conducive to this objective. It was for that reason that I resisted the attempts made to extend the franchise. I believe that the Bill is not the occasion to extend


the franchise. I resisted extending the franchise, first, to an unknown number of people in Europe, and secondly, to people on holiday. Those were attemtps to extend the franchise, and I resisted then because they were a fundamental departure from our normal law.
On the other hand, I readily agreed to enabling 300,000 Service voters and their spouses to vote. Let me emphasise that that action did not constitute an extension of the franchise. I was simply giving more opportunity for people in the Forces and their wives or husbands to vote. Our first objective was to secure the widest possible acceptance of the result. For that reason we have stuck very closely to normal electoral procedure.
The second objective in framing the legislation was to secure a fair campaign. In order to do so we made three innovations—two of them in the Bill. First, there was the innovation of granting £125,000 of public money to each of the two sides. This is a new departure, and I admit at once that the amounts are modest. I resisted the attempt to increase the amounts. It was said yesterday that it was an arbitrary figure. It was not arbitrary. I discussed it privately with all parties in the House, with almost all parties outside and with the two umbrella organisations. It was not a consensus, but it was the nearest I could get to a concensus.
The second innovation is the distribution at public expense of the case of each of the two campaigning organisations. Those two documents are prepared, are being printed, and will shortly be distributed to every household in the country.
The third innovation to which I should perhaps briefly refer which is not in the Bill is that Cabinet Ministers who do not agree with the Government's recommendation were allowed to dissent. Those are three innovations which we have introduced so as to produce a fair campaign.
We are also distributing to every household a shortened version of the Government's White Paper.
I make no apology for this. The Government are not going round apologising for their existence. The Government have a right, indeed a duty to make a recommendation to the country and to

try to persuade people to accept that recommendation. Having done that, we are also using public money to put the two other points of view. Taking the cost of the two pamphlets and adding to that the £125,000 to each side, we are giving more than £600,000 to each side, in one case to campaign against the Government's recommendation. Nothing could be fairer than that.
I recognised from the beginning that there were two points of view on the count. I held one view and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) held another.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend says that there are two views. That is precisely what we have been arguing. Precisely because there are two views there should be only two documents to be distributed. My right hon. Friend makes our case.

Mr. Short: If my hon. Friend is saying that the British Government do not have a right to make a recommendation to the country and to try to persuade people to accept that recommendation, his concept of Government is a little different from mine.
I have said from the beginning that I recognised that there were two sincerely held views on the count. I hold one and the majority in the House apparently holds a different view. I have tried to meet the views of the House by agreeing to a local count and a local declaration.
We have tried to be fair on the ballot paper. We have tried to keep it simple. I had the widest consultations and discussed the form of the question and the form of the ballot paper with all the parties and the two campaigning organisations. The Government published the White Paper with the proposal for the ballot paper before deciding what would be their recommendation.
Here again, I accepted the view put in the House that "European Community" was inadequate and perhaps misleading to some people. I therefore agreed to insert "(the Common Market)".
In conclusion, the whole issue of British membership of the European Community has caused deep divisions on both sides of the House and outside the House. Because of that I am all the more grateful for the restrained and constructive


way in which we have conducted our discussions over the last three days. Long debates and cross-party divisions were inevitable on a matter of this kind. The very tight timetable I asked the House to try to meet has been met, and I hope that the restrained objectivity that has been shown in the debate will be extended to the campaign and that when the result is announced after 5th June all of us here and in the country will accept it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am bound to say that I think the Lord President was a bit complacent about the quality of the debates on the Bill and a bit complacent about the Bill itself. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Opposition have been opposed to the Bill from the start. We maintain that opposition, but I shall not weary the House by deploying the case any further.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave way on the question of a county count, but we still think it deplorable, as do many people in the country, that it should appear to be the object of the right hon. Gentleman and most of the Labour Party to cut down rather than to increase the number of people who will be able to vote in the referendum. That seems to go against the purposes of referenda, whatever they may be. It seems that that will be held, quite rightly, against the right hon. Gentleman.
The whole tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks over the past two or three days has been to try to stop the people voting. I refer to people abroad and to people on holiday. It would have been quite possible substantially to have increased the number of people able to vote. I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence has shown a much more accommodating spirit than any other Ministry within the Government. I am not at all surprised about that.
Apart from the question of the Service voters, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude has been deplorable and thoroughly in keeping with a very shabby measure. We all know the genesis of this measure. I believe that it has done no credit to the Labour Party. It is a

thoroughly undesirable constitutional precedent and I am sure that the Labour Party will live to regret it.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend the Lord President said that there were to be three innovations in this exercise. Unfortunately, three documents and not two will be addressed to the electorate. I regret that the amendment was not called which would have enabled us to have had a short debate on the Government's extraordinary proposal to send out to every household in the country, at the taxpayer's expense, an argumentative mini-White Paper and not just a statement of the facts at the Government's expense.
Last night mention was made of information papers in 1948. I think that reference was made to the subject of fire prevention. It so happens that in 1948, as Financial Secretary, I was responsible for Government information. In those days a firm principle was laid down—which both Herbert Morrison and Stafford Cripps always insisted upon scrupulously —that public money should not be used for propaganda on any subject about which there was major controversy in the country. Major controversy was confined to controversy not between parties but between any major section of public opinion. I believe that the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), will agree with me in recalling that practice.
Over and above ministerial speeches and normal White Papers the Government used public money only on issues such as national savings, public health or road safety, in respect of which there was no serious controversy of any kind. That was a good principle, as it maintained a high standard in controlling public expenditure and in conducting our political system. The principle was maintained not merely through the Attlee Government but throughout Governments headed by Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden and Mr. Harold Macmillan.
The breakdown in the principle came during the Government headed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). During that Government we had a White Paper on the Common Market. I wholly agreed with that, as it


was a perfectly reasonable procedure. The White Paper set out the Government's policy. We then had a mini-White Paper arguing the case, which was distributed, at the public's expense, to every post office in the country. Everyone in the then Labour Opposition protested against that mini-White Paper, as a wrong use of public money and an abuse of political principles which had always been followed hitherto.
I regret to find that the Government have not merely followed that practice but, on this occasion, have gone further. The mini-White Paper is not merely to be left in post offices, from where I imagine a large part of the population would not trouble to pick it up; it is to be conveyed to every household by being pushed through letter boxes.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that the Government should be allowed to state their case, but he well knows that it is one thing for a Government to state their case through the recognised channels and a quite different matter for them to spend considerable amounts of public money by circulating every household. My right hon. Friend would not argue that in a General Election a Government would be justified in distributing to every household, at public expense, a propaganda leaflet stating their policy against the Opposition. Nobody has ever suggested that such a course would be desirable, or that it should be pursued.
I hope that the Lord President will take action on that matter. If, in addition to the preamble and the curious phrasing of the question, we are to have this tendentious pamphlet, distributed in its millions at the taxpayers'expense, it will affect people's opinion on the question whether the referendum is fair. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this important issue.
What parliamentary authority have the Government for expending public money on the distribution of this threatened "popular" White Paper? I understood from a Government spokesman last night that such expenditure would be authorised by Clause 5, which refers to
Any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of this Act … shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

It does not seem to me that that, in itself, would authorise the Government to spend money in the way I have described. It cannot be argued that the distribution of a propaganda leaflet is an administrative expense incurred by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of this legislation. There is nothing in the Bill about the distribution of propaganda leaflets by the Government.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will say what parliamentary authority there is for such expenditure, and I appeal to him once again to desist from what I regard as a disreputable practice.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has just made the very point which I myself was about to make—in other words, that in their whole conduct of the referendum the Government have shown a total abdication of their responsibilities. They have used their majority in the House to force Members of Parliament to neglect their duty to constituents and to join in this abdication of parliamentary responsibility.
I found the Lord President's speech in moving the Third Reading of this shabby little Bill contradictory, self-righteous, prim and rather unctuous. He said that Parliament at any time it liked could ensure that the country left the Communities. On the other hand, despite the claim about parliamentary sovereignty, he dismissed in cavalier fashion the fact that it was Parliament which ratified the treaties—and he did so as though that factor were of no importance whatever.
I find it odd that the Government are to use public funds to finance the two self-appointed umbrella organisations. The Government apparently have agreed these matters with interested parties and no doubt regard that situation as adequate, but they have taken no account of the views of this House about that type of public expenditure.
I do not feel as strongly about the White Paper as the right hon. Gentleman. The former Conservative Government issued a White Paper in similar circumstances, although not for the purpose of influencing a vote. That White Paper was issued for the information of the public. In that case the vote was a matter for this House.
It is fair to say that the Government having recommended to the House of Commons a policy expressed in a White Paper, and the House of Commons having accepted that policy by a considerable majority, the Government are entitled to use public money to inform the people of that fact. It is Government policy that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Communities. That is the view of the House of Commons. It is not a grave sin to express those facts in a White Paper and to distribute copies of it to the people, showing the arguments which led the Parliament to take that view.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Would the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) approve if six months before a General Election the Labour Government issued a White Paper containing its policy—approved by a majority, which a majority party could obtain—free to every voter in the country?

Mr. Macmillan: A contentious document setting out controversial policies was issued not too long before the General Election. I am not sure whether I would not welcome an official version of what the Labour Government were committed to and intended to do as opposed to the somewhat emasculated manifesto which they put before the electorate. I am not sure whether Government supporters representing constituencies in the Midlands would have done quite so well had their constituents realised the full extent of the Government's nationalisation programme in the motor car industry. It is a matter of judgment whether the Government should use public money to distribute the White Paper without regard to the views of the House or of the umbrella organisations.
I find unattractive the self-righteous way in which the Leader of the House prided himself on having given in, with great tact and care, to the will of the House. He did nothing of the sort. The change was made to the Bill as a result of a vote in which the House of Commons defeated the Government by a simple majority. It is extremely complacent of the Leader of the House to claim that as an example of his tolerance and concern.
The Leader of the House and his colleagues showed themselves to have little

regard for the realities of international law. They have little concern for the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament. Their contempt for Parliament and for the judgment of the people was demonstrated by the way in which they tried to confine the scope of that vote as narrowly as possible.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. English: The sad thing about the Bill is the decline in public morality which it illustrates on behalf of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) illustrated how that morality was interpreted in relation to documents sent out by a former Labour Government. This is no longer so.
Last night I referred to the five Members who should not really be in the Cabineth. One might call them the frightened five, because five is the difference between the 16 Members of the majority of the Cabinet and 11, which would be their due proportion of the Cabinet, if they reflected the Government underneath or the party behind them.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: So that we may be clear, will my hon. Friend repeat that incredibly tortuous argument?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope not, because, although I could not quite follow it, I do not want to hear it again.

Mr. English: For the benefit of my hon. Friend—it is perfectly simple—the Cabinet includes 16 pro-Market Ministers. the Government underneath have a majority of anti-Marketeers, and the party to which they belong has a majority of anti-Marketeers. Therefore, there should be a minority of II pro-Marketeers in the Cabinet if they represented the party to which they belonged or the Government which serves under them. To call themselves "the Government" is a statement which may in some tortuous, technical sense be true, but they do not in fact represent the members of the Government who serve under them.
It makes one think that this country would be better served if it did what is done in Australia, where the majority party elects the members of the Cabinet.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Or, alternatively, another Government.

Mr. English: Another illustration which one may take from Australia is the 2,000—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now on Third Reading, which relates to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. English: I am precisely on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated, includes provision for the cases for both sides to be sent out. That was originally suggested by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who started with high hopes that the Bill would be fair and whose statement included such matters as the limitation of advertising and the 2,000 words from each side, which was taken from the Australian Referendum Acts. The 2,000 words from each side are still there. That is the only matter that is.
My right hon. Friend asked what could be fairer than what is proposed by this so-called Government. What could be fairer is what is done by Australian Governments—the very example from which the idea was taken. That is what could be fairer. The Australian Government are one of the 2,000-word cases. The Australian Opposition usually produce the opposite case.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government are sending out their own cases and "the other two cases". What other two? There is one other, and one which is exactly the same.
For example, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be participating in this small clique of 16 Cabinet Ministers sending out the Government's case, and at the same time, in his capacity as President of Britain in Europe, sending out an identical case on behalf of that organisation. It is two to one.

Mr. Tim Renton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is drawing his analogy with Australia rather wide. As he is so impressed by Australian voting practices, he will know that voting at General Elections in Australia is compulsory. Does he think that we should introduce that practice in this country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see that the hon. Gentleman realises that he will be straying out of order if he answers that question.

Mr. English: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us take another example of bias which has been admitted by the Government Front Bench. It was never suggested originally that the referendum should be conducted in any way other than like a General Election, except that there would be no candidates—only two cases. We heard only last night from the Parliamentary Secretary that the COI, which closes down during elections, will not be closing down for the referendum. It will be functioning at full blast to produce an additional Government case on top of the one being prepared outside the Government but on the Government's behalf.
There is another unheard-of development. Civil servants will be engaging in politics which will involve millions of voters. They will operate a special information unit under the command of—guess who? It will be my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, head of the only Department that really has a vested interest, in terms of jobs, in staying in Europe. It is "jobs for the boys" providing a special information unit giving some very special information. It would be dealing not merely with factual material but with, as the White Paper puts it, interpretations of the Government's case. Does anyone think that bringing civil servants into controversial politics in this way is not a dangerous precedent to set in this or any other country, which has not been used to that practice? It is a practice culled from authoritarian countries, but introducing such practices is much easier than getting rid of them.
All this shows fright, because the Government would have a better case, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realised, whatever the result of the referendum, if they could have said that they were absolutely and scrupulously fair in the way in which we endeavour to conduct General Elections in this country. The Bill was unfair when it was presented. Only two things have happened to it since, and one of those does not matter so far as opinion on each side is concerned. The vote will be counted and declared in counties. That will have remarkable effects. For example, London, which has a greater population than the whole of Scotland, will be one single declaration, whereas Scotland will


be split up into smaller areas. But it makes no difference as far as opinion is concerned.
The other concession concerns the extension of the vote to Service men. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary could not bring themselves to move that amendment, because they realised that this was a deliberate deviation from the normal electoral franchise, brought in just for the purpose—again by a Minister who is a member of one of the Britain in Europe Committees—of attempting to bias the case in favour of the Government side of the argument—or, should I say, the 16-men side of the argument, the-little-clique-in-the-Government side of the argument. I hope that all those Service men who will now have the vote will be reflecting upon the fact that if they vote "Yes" and Britain remains in the Community they will not be serving a country which devotes 5·8 per cent. of its gross national product to defence but will be in Western Europe where the nine on average spend only 3½ per cent. of their GNP on defence. The future of these Service men is dismal if the country votes "Yes".

Mr. Rathbone: This point may again be ruled out of order, but it is absolutely irrelevant to our membership of the European Community to consider what the other members of the Community spend on defence.

Mr. English: Like so many pro-Marketeers, the hon. Member does not seem to realise that the Community's target is political union by 1980. There is no State in the world which is politically united which does not include defence as one of its federal powers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Member will now keep to the question of the referendum.

Mr. English: The point at issue is that the referendum could have been fairly conducted. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wished it to be fairly conducted. His statement was much fairer than the White Paper, which was in many respects fairer than the Bill. The only major change in the Bill is the addition of another little item of bias in favour of the "Yes" case—the pro-Market case.
That can only be the result of fear—fear of the result of a democratic process. A clique of 16 that was not frightened that the country in its millions might vote against it would not need to try to bias the matter in its favour. It has to do so because it is frightened that the result will go against it, just as the result in its own party went against it and the result in its own Government under the Cabinet went against it, somewhat to its surprise.
Bias is introduced for a purpose. It is introduced only if one thinks that one has a cause for doing so, and here that cause is fear of the result. This country has a reputation for fairness in its electoral process. It is because of fear that a Government, or a clique of 16 people in the Government, think that they must distort the electoral process in this way.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not my hon. Friend's motive for raising these points about unfairness the fact that he now scents the smell of defeat? If the Government had wanted to bias the result unfairly in favour of their recommendation, surely they would have sought to extend the franchise to overseas residents?

Mr. English: My hon. Friend cannot even comprehend that there are hon. Members who believe in the fair conduct of voting processes. He says that I point these matters out only because the smell of defeat is in my nostrils. I point them out because I happen to believe passionately in democracy. That is why I believe in a referendum, but I believe in one fairly conducted.

Mr. Anderson: What about overseas residents?

Mr. English: They do not vote in our elections, and one does not normally change the franchise for a specific purpose. One does so only if one is engaged in a fiddle, or because one is thinking about the franchise in general. In the latter case, it is best done when a General Election or a referendum is not immediately in prospect. One can then consider whether it is justifiable to give Service men or overseas residents the vote. It should not be done in the speedy passage of this Bill, with its enforced timetable, on a particular argument which was not even mentioned in the White Paper published only a few weeks ago.
The provision was shoved in at the last minute, so much so that my right hon. Friend the Lord President and his colleagues would not even move it themselves—and I do not blame them.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: My hon. Friend is becoming a little extreme. Throughout the passage of the Bill my right hon. Friend and I have resolutely resisted any extension of the franchise, or the entitlement to vote, partly on the grounds that it might be seen as bias. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that.

Mr. English: I do, indeed. I was pointing out that the one breach of that rule is one that neither my hon. Friend nor his colleagues wished to move. I was not criticising my right hon. Friend the Lord President or my hon. Friend the Minister of State on that ground, and I think that my hon. Friend well knows that I was not. What I was criticising is the nature of bias introduced in this way—

Mr. Anderson: By whom?

Mr. English: By the clique of 16 that arrogates to itself the title of "Government".
The Government have resisted every amendment moved by my hon. Friends or by Opposition Members designed to make sure that expenditure was fair, that the processes on both sides were fair, or that money was declared if it was spent by people other than the two umbrella organisations. Every amendment designed to ensure that an element of greater fairness was introduced into the Bill—for example, in respect of advertising expenditure—has been resisted.
We are told that the Government have done a great service by giving £125,000 to each umbrella organisation and that this will enable them to work wonders. That sum would not even cover the cost of the most modest advertising campaign. This degree of unfairness compared, for example, to the £1 million cost of the popular version of the White Paper, is unnecessary unless people are frightened, and it is that fright and that bias to which I object and find sad.

9.21 p.m

Mr. Emery: It might be thought that during the past three days the House of

Commons has had opportunities to hear some of my views on the Bill. I intend to say one thing only. The referendum is a tragedy for this country. The Bill is a tragedy for this country.

Mr. Cryer: Well, said; sit down.

Mr. Emery: The Bill started out as a tragedy, it is a unique tragedy as it leaves the House, and it will continue to be a unique tragedy as it operates in the weeks ahead. The House will rue the introduction of the Bill, because it will continue for a long time as more and more people demand more and more referenda during the years ahead.
I oppose the Bill absolutely, and will oppose it on Third Reading.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I shall take the example of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and be brief. We may say of the last speech "May God be blessed" because it has been in great contrast to the speeches of the past two or three days.
The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) complained about some hon. Members apparently ignoring the fact that the treaties had been ratified by Parliament and that, therefore, there was a contempt for Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty in the attitude to the referendum. This is a curious argument coming in opposition to a Bill which seeks to take Parliament back to the people so that on a new venture we can renew the mandate given to Parliament. It is an extension of securing the wholehearted co-operation and the full-hearted approval of people with Parliament.
Throughout the passage of the Treaty of Accession and the Act of accession what were we told? When we deplored, for example, the surrender of powers under Section 2 of that Act, we were told that we had nothing to worry about because the sovereignty of our Parliament remained untouched, for, after all, no Parliament could bind its successor and, therefore, we could unratify the treaty at any time we chose.
Having done that, we are accused, apparently, of breaking faith, but it was on that basis that the infamous Section 2 of the original Act was pushed through. We do not take these criticisms from Conservative Members.
The majority of Labour Members and Ministers welcome the referendum. Our criticisms are directed not at a referendum but at aspects of the Bill which implements the referendum and which we regard as being unfair. We accept that the referendum is an extension of our democracy. We must insist that the Bill which implements the referendum should justify itself in its fairness.
I want to talk about the things which have emerged from this. My right hon. Friend referred to there being only two views involved. He is absolutely right. There are not only merely two views involved; there are only two words involved. It is the simplest of all questions that have been posed—"Yes" or "No". It is against that background of only two views and two answers that we must look at the question of the three documents. What is now being proposed is not that each case should be advocated fairly and equally but that each case should be advocated by the protagonists of each side—myself on the one side and the right hon. Member for Farnham, no doubt, on the other side—and then along come the Government. Precisely because it is the third paper that they produce, it is apparently in a middle position, an authoritative position and an objective position.
Why this is particularly evil is that it has this apparent objectivity. It is like me having an election in which a broadsheet or an election address is issued on my behalf, and another on behalf of my Tory opponent, and then another one comes along to say "On behalf of the people of West Renfrewshire, we think you should vote for the Labour candidate." That is what is intolerable about this. Even at this late hour I ask the Government to say that we shall either have one address issued jointly by the Government and the pro-Market forces outside, or that it be issued only by the Government. Only in this way can we get the first fairness principle into it.

Mr. Evan Luard: Does not my hon. Friend accept that there is a distinction between a view expressed by one of the two organisations which have been set up to propound particular view-points, a view which is of great relevance to every elector, and the view of the Gov-

ernment of the day? The Government have been spending many months renegotiating and have reached a view. I think that most electors would want to know that view.

Mr. Buchan: There are two ways of doing that. This would be solved if there were four papers—that is, if there were a majority view of the Government. Incidentally, the majority view of the Government would be against the Common Market if one counted the Ministers. But if one accepts the Government as being the Cabinet, why not a majority view of the Cabinet and a minority view? We could have four papers. I should welcome that. That would be one solution if we want fairness.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Mr. Buchan: I shall not give way. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman too much.
The second unfairness is on the question of expenditure. I gave example after example about this. I appeal to the Government on this matter. There is still time to try to prevent the grave abuses taking place—the airlifts to Brussels, the utilisation of civil servants, the utilisation of not only the British Civil servants but of the European civil service and the Commission, and the fact that the Commission itself is organising this. I have been approached by journalists who say "What are you all getting up to?" I ask "What do you mean?" The reply is "I cannot even get off the ground". I am told that a newspaper office in Fleet Street is getting invitations week after week to be wined and dined in Brussels. Where the hell shall I wine and dine them? In Paisley? That is what is going on. I regard this as a form of corruption. If it took place during a General Election campaign it would be a form of corruption and would be punishable by law. There is no question about that.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend assure the Government side of the House that when this Bill has become law all the very impressive evidence that he produced last night of the sort of thing that is going on will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that proper action can be taken?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have sent mine.

Mr. Buchan: On one aspect of that I am awaiting a reply from the European Movement. I have written to the Chancellor. It may yet have to go to a court case. However, I would hope that it would issue a statement withdrawing its declaration that any donations given to the European Movement would qualify for tax relief, because it is coming very close to conspiracy to defraud. I would hope that it would make a voluntary action of withdrawing this.
I agree with the Lord President that it would set a good example if it would admit what has been happening over the last few months, return the moneys to those who have given them in the belief that they would get tax relief, which the Chancellor makes quite clear that they would be very unlikely to get, and avoid any unpleasant court cases.
I believe that it is misplaced enthusiasm rather than any intention to defraud. I hope that tomorrow I shall receive a reply from the European Movement saying that it accepts the point and has withdrawn the statement and so notified local groups which could run into all sorts of trouble. The sponsors of this organisation include many distinguished members of the Labour Party.
These are the main points that have to be brought out. There is still time in another place to make it clear that there will be two documents and that we are putting a clamp on ostentatious and unjust expenditure. I appeal to all hon. Members to remember that we have a case to deploy. I hope that we shall not hear some of the smears we heard in a short debate on the subject last night.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Goodhart: During the past three days many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have criticised the Prime Minister for seizing on the referendum as a tortuous device to bridge the gap between the "maxi" Government and the "mini" Government. I do not share that view. I believe that the Prime Minister has shown considerable imagination and ingenuity in the face of an exceptionally difficult situation within his own party.
No one can accuse the Lord President of having shown imagination or ingenuity in dealing with the arguments put forward in the past three days. He said that he hoped that the passage of the Bill would

lead to the widest possible acceptance of the referendum result. The rejection of an attempt to let those vote who are working for the Crown and community abroad will not help us. The loss of votes by 2 million people on holiday will not lead to the widest acceptance of the result.
The turning down of our attempt to enfranchise holiday makers is the result of arid administration coupled with a lurking fear in the subconsciousness of Ministers that people who go on holiday in June must somehow be anti-Socialists.
I share some of the fears expressed by some Labour Members about the distribution of the "mini" White Paper. This is a potentially dangerous precedent. I am sorry that the Government rejected late last night our attempt to get a parliamentary check on the text of the White Paper before it is sent out. I am sorry that some Labour Members below the Gangway who this afternoon have been criticising the distribution of this White Paper did not back their criticism with their votes last night. Perhaps the best commentary on the Government's handling of this Bill is that at the end of it all we still find that the European Economic Community cannot be given its proper title on the ballot paper. I hope that the other place will do better than we have done in the past three days.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. loan Evans: I will be brief, because for two parliamentary days we have sat into the early hours of the morning to debate this Bill. I realise that over 200 Labour Members have been here until those early hours, as well as about a dozen Conservative Members. I tell the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), whom we have heard on numerous occasions, that the Third Reading of this Bill is not tragedy but a triumph. It is a triumph for the British people, because this issue was put before the electorate at the last election. We in the Labour Party fought the election and said that we would renegotiate the terms, and when that was done would put them before the British people. I know that a majority of hon. Members on the Government benches do not believe that the renegotiated terms are satisfactory, but the terms have been renegotiated to the satisfaction of the majority of the Cabinet and the matter is to be put before the country.
I find it strange that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) should accuse us of denying people the right to participate in this referendum. That statement comes ill from the Conservative Party, bearing in mind that it denied that right to every elector in the country. The Conservative Government did not hold a referendum. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) talked about contempt of Parliament, but the Conservative Party has contempt for the people.
Four countries applied to join the Common Market. Ireland sought to join, and the people of Ireland were given the right to decide whether they should go in. Denmark applied to join and the people of that country decided to go in. They held a referendum, and they are in, but they will probably hold another one to decide whether they should stay in. The people of Norway were given the right to have a referendum, and they voted to stay out. That is another story and I shall not go into it, but the people of Norway have gone from strength to strength by staying out.
Four countries applied to join, and three were given the right to hold a referendum. The only people who were denied that right were the British people, and that was the action of the Conservative Government. That is what we should realise, and that is why I say it is a triumph and not a tragedy that the British people are to have the chance of this referendum, because what we are now deciding is not whether the terms are satisfactory but whether the British people want to stay in the Market or come out of it.

Mr. Ian Gow: We listen to the hon. Gentleman's Welsh eloquence with great admiration. If there is so much intrinsic merit in the principle of a referendum, why was not that principle spelled out—which it was not—in the manifesto on which he fought the last election?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Labour Party manifesto.

Mr. Gow: I have.

Mr. Evans: Which one—February or October?

Mr. Gow: I have taken the precaution of having here the manifesto upon which the hon. Gentleman fought the October election. I do not know whether he has read it. It says:
The Labour Party pledges that within twelve months of this election we will give the British people the final say … through the ballot box".
There is nothing there about a referendum. I make this point in all seriousness. If the referendum is so brilliant a concept, why was it not spelled out in the manifesto?

Mr.Evans: Because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Labour Party manifesto is in the Bill. What we are discussing is what is in the Bill.

Mr. Evans: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may answer the point made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). The manifesto says that it will be done through the ballot box, and there are two ways of doing that. One is by a referendum, and the other is by a General Election. Those were the alternatives in the manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should have a General Election, why did he not put down an amendment to that effect? I have not heard any demand for a General Election on this issue. We might, of course, come to that. I recall the hon. Gentleman's words. He wanted to have a General Election, but it is a referendum that we are to have.
I mentioned that four countries applied to join the Common Market and that in three of them a referendum had been held, but the position is worse than that. The people of France held a referendum on whether Britain should join the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Third Reading debate. There is nothing in the Bill about the French referendum.

Mr. Evans: We have not had referendum Bills before. This is a unique occasion. However, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This is a triumph for us. We committed ourselves to a referendum. It will be for the British people to decide. I know that there are those in favour and those against on both sides of the House.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Not only have the Opposition denied the British people the opportunity of choosing by the use of the ballot box; they are going even further. Many of them have spent a large part of the debate, including some of those on the Opposition Front Bench, making it quite clear that if the decision of the people is contrary to what they, with their peculiar ways, believe, they will disregard the decision of the people.

Mr. Evans: That is an important point. The Opposition are not quite sure of their position. They have held the British people in contempt and denied them the right to choose. If the British people decide to come out, I believe that the Opposition will have second thoughts.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Let us hope so.

Mr. Evans: Let us not prejudge them. I said at the beginning that we should welcome the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through the other place and soon become law and that the British people will be encouraged to turn out en masse to decide the issue. I hope that, despite the massive forces which will seek to persuade the people that Britain should stay in the Market, the British people, in their wisdom, will look at what has happened in the past two years and that on referendum day they will make a declaration of British independence.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The Bill is extremely misleading. It is one of the essential principles of any Bill that its consquences should be spelt out clearly for all to see. All that this Bill does is to state that there will be a referendum, but the consequence of that referendum is nowhere spelt out in the Bill. On the contrary, it is left to the White Paper —Cmnd. 5925—which in paragraph 6 makes a statement of the Government's intention. The contents of the White Paper will not be enacted if the Bill should not receive the Royal Assent.
Paragraph 6 of the White Paper says:
The Government have agreed to he bound by the verdict of the British people, as expressed in the referendum result.
Whatever the result of the referendum may be, it cannot be binding on the

House of Commons. There is a principle of the utmost importance here which is violated by the Bill in two ways—first, because the Bill does not spell out what the consequence of the referendum will be, and, secondly, because no Act of Parliament can affect the right and, as I think, the duty of Members of the House to exercise their judgment. That is my first criticism of the Bill.
My second criticism arises from the intervention I made in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I do not believe that the Labour Party believes in the principle of the referendum either. If it believed in it, it would have appeared in the manifesto from which I quoted earlier. There is no mention of the word "referendum" in the manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the October election.

Mr. loan Evans: The February one.

Mr. Gow: No, the October one. If the hon. Gentleman has in his hands a copy of the Labour Party October manifesto which mentions the word "referendum", I will gladly give way.

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Labour Party manifesto. We are debating the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Gow: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw two further pieces of evidence to the attention of the House, about the lack of enthusiasm on the Government side for the whole principle of the referendum. On 10th April 1972 two members of the Cabinet wrote to the then Leader of the Labour Party, who is now the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said to his right hon. Friend:
I am firmly opposed to the principle of the referendum. Its advocacy, let alone its implementation, is likely to damage seriously our Parliamentary system.
I agree wholeheartedly with the views of the Chancellor of the Duchy as expressed in his letter.
However, the Chancellor of the Duchy was not alone. The Home Secretary also wrote a letter on the same day to his


right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Home Secretary said:
This"—
that is, the issue on which he resigned from the Shadow Cabinet—
raises the wider issue of whether a referendum on this or any other subject is intended to encourage the public to express its view purely on the merits of the question without the attempts to mobilise party loyalties. I doubt"—
these are the words I wish to emphasise—
if this would ever work in practice, although if it did the result would be a very substantial undermining of the existing system of parliamentary responsibility. Governments would find it still more difficult to carry out coherent and consistent policies.
I wish to emphasise those words of the present Home Secretary when he criticised the referendum concept.
The cost to the taxpayer is £9 million to get the Labour Party out of its own predicament. An extremely dangerous precedent is being created by the Bill. It has also led to an event which I believe is even more damaging, namely, the abandonment of the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility.
I fundamentally oppose the Bill. I believe that if it becomes law we shall regret it. I hope that all of my hon. Friends will oppose its Third Reading tonight.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Rathbone: We have been debating a Bill which is unique, special and which sets dangerous precedents. I believe that it is obnoxious and an abominable innovation. It seeks to obtain from the country a simple answer to an immensely complicated question. In doing so it is full of innovations as the Lord President of the Council pointed out. It is sad that it cannot include at least the additional innovation of votes for those holidaying abroad and votes for those living abroad, often helping this country to earn valuable foreign revenue.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the power of this Government or the power of the best Civil Service in the world to be able to work out a way to bring that about. There has been much talk of Government rights. I believe that it is a Government right to recommend. The Bill allows the Government that right. Much more, it is a Government's duty to lead. It is there that the referendum

Bill falls down because it is an abdication of this duty to lead. It is an abdication of the pure principle of the operations of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I know that many Opposition Members have fought the Bill root and branch, hip and thigh. Am I mistaken in thinking that many of them wanted to enlarge the area of franchise within the Bill which they condemn so determinedly? I have the general impression that they condemn this referendum as a major sin and having done that they want to enlarge the area of sinning. The stand which they have taken is of condemnation and at the same time a wish to enlarge the area of franchise. I do not understand that. I should like someone to explain it to me.

Mr. Rathbone: I am sorry that my speech must, of necessity, be drawn out by a minute in order to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that an instrument is obnoxious and abominable is no reason to make it less obnoxious and less abominable. That is what the Opposition and some Government supporters have been trying to bring about during the last two or three days.
In summary, this is a sad and tragic day. It is a historical day, in its most horrible sense. The Bill is too short; it is a foul Bill and a pricey Bill, and I hope that the House will not give it a Third Reading.

9.50 p.m.

Mr.Ivan Lawrence: As the debate draws to its conclusion I place on record that I have enjoyed much of the debate to which I have had the privilege of listening. I have enjoyed the speeches of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that have ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. As a party politician I have enjoyed the spectacle of the Right wing, the Left wing, the middle, the inside right and the inside left of the Government side all arguing with themselves, losing little opportunity to attack the Government and the leaders of the Labour Party.
I have enjoyed the spectacle of the Government trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. They have been arguing that the British people should decide, but not all the British people. They have


been arguing that Parliament should remain sovereign, but that Members of Parliament are not fit to judge and take a decision. They have been arguing that the uniqueness of this referendum means that the ordinary constitutional rules should be set aside, but that we must try to fit them within the rules of the Representation of the People Act 1949. All these matters of enjoyment have consistently occurred throughout these three days, but the question will remain at the end: has the Bill achieved what it was intended to achieve? Has it brought together the two warring wings of the Labour Party? Has it patched over the rifts that exist within that movement? I do not know. Perhaps we shall find out in the coming weeks.
What I am sure of is that the essence of the Bill has not changed during the three days we have debated it. It is still a shoddy, bogus, party political manoeuvre and, on the last page of the Bill, the Government have had to maintain the words "The Common Market", so that the great, all-knowing British people shall really understand what the words "European Community" mean.
I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, and I hope that never again does this Parliament have to put up with legislation of this kind. When the Bill becomes law, as it undoubtedly will, I shall fight to the last ounce of my power in my constituency to make sure that the argument that was really behind those who wanted the referendum shall be defeated and that this country stays in the Common Market where it deserves to be and where it must be for the future greatness of this country.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: This has been a fascinating three days. I am sorry that the Third Reading debate has taken the form of many Third Reading debates. After a great deal of worthy debate on detail we have had some rather poor rhetoric on Third Reading.
The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) informed the House at considerable length that the Conservative Party thought it proper to distribute a White Paper provided that there was no chance for the people to vote on the information it contained. We on the Government benches prefer to use a White

Paper and the information that we provide to the public to better ends.
On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) delivered what I can only take to be one of the first shots of the referendum campaign. I only hope that the referendum campaign will be conducted at a somewhat higher level than that. If it is not, even I may come to regret the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "You will."] The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) appeared to adduce an argument that the judgment of Members of Parliament would be best exercised in ignorance of the views of the electorate, which I take it is the basic argument against the referendum.
Finally, we had a forensic address from the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). We on this side of the court found him and his hon. Friends guilty of deception in those years when they promised that we should not enter Europe without the wholehearted consent of the British Parliament and the people.
The only worthy contribution to this Third Reading debate was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Bill is a triumph for British democracy as it marks the honouring of a pledge and a new development in our democratic system. I commend the Bill to the House.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Tim Renton: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) in his eloquent speech mentioned "contempt for the people" Surely it is that contempt of the people that Ministers have shown throughout this debate. They have never asked the people whether they want the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) referred to conscious ambiguity on the part of the Labour Party. In the Labour Party's last General Election manifesto there was reference to the ballot box and a display of conscious evasiveness in that no reference was made to the word "referendum ".
I gain the impression from my constituents and from my correspondence that more and more people wish to see this decision taken by Parliament. I am asked "Why do you not take this decision? Why should we, who have not


had all the information made available to us, have this decision thrust upon us? "The people have not been asked whether they wish to spend £10 million to save the political skin of the Prime Minister. The real contempt of the people that the Minister of State and the Lord President have shown throughout these three days of debate has been in their rejection time and again of our amendments, in which we have sought to extend the franchise for this unique occasion.
I believe that this Bill will see a lessening of effective democracy in this country.

Referenda always echo the voice of the majority only. The rights of minorities will be less protected. It is particularly to look after those minorities that Members of Parliament sit in the House. I shall vote against the Bill. It was conceived in ambiguity and born out of a desperate desire to stop the Labour Party tearing itself apart. It is now christened with cynicism and boredom.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided. Ayes 180, Noes 41.

Division No. 190.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin
Millan, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbrlde)


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashley, Jack
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Bates, Alf
Gilbert, Dr John
O'Halloran, Michael


Bean, R. E.
Ginsburg, David
Ovenden, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Grocott, Bruce
Parker, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Body, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Perry, Ernest


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bradley, Tom
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Reid, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Richardson. Miss Jo


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Buchanan, Richard
Huckfield, Les
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rowlands, Ted


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ryman, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sandelson, Neville


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Selby, Harry


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Crawehaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cronin, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Gerald
Small, William


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stallard, A. W.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Litterick, Tom
Stoddart, David


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thompson, George


Edge, Geoff
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Bragg &amp; Scun)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tomlinson, John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McNamara, Kevin
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Meacher, Michael
Ward, Michael


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkins, David




Watt, Hamish
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Weetch, Ken
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)



White, James (Pollok)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Woodall, Alec
Mr. James Hamilton and


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Woof, Robert
Mr. James A. Dunn.




NOES


Biffen, John
Hurd, Douglas
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brittan, Leon
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Brotherton, Michael
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Carlisle, Mark
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Madel, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Corrie, John
Monro, Hector
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Emery, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Viggers, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Normanton, Tom



Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayhoe, Barney
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Tim Rathbone and


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Tim Renton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

M4, WALES

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I wish to raise the case for the speedy completion of the M4 motorway into West Wales. I had selected this topic some few days before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that, despite the Budget cuts, the programme for this motorway was to remain intact. I should like to think that was cause and effect, but it probably was not. It was clearly a substantial victory in the Cabinet by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, he will have the gratitude of all the people of South and West Wales for that victory and for stating so equivocally following the Budget announcement that the M4 is his personal top priority. In the light of the strong personal commitment of my right hon. Friend, I see it as my task tonight to underline the case for speed in completing the M4 and to ask some specific questions. In my view, the utmost priority is for Wales to be linked speedily to the national motorway network.
I recall that in the late 1960s it was said that there was a firm target date for the completion of the motorway as far as Pontardulais by 1976. That target

date is now clearly unobtainable. There has been a slippage in the programme.
I should like to know what, in present circumstances, is the anticipated completion date of that motorway. In addition, I should like to know where the Welsh Office expect the terminal point of the motorway to be. It is still said that Pontardulais is the terminal point. It was thought that, simultaneous with the motorway reaching Pontardulais, a two-lane highway would be pushed beyond that place with the Carmarthen and the St. Clears bypasses. In this context I should like to know whether the motorway is to be extended, and whether it will be extended into Pembrokeshire.
At present the motorway extends only as far as Tredegar Park. The remaining section of the road beyond Tredegar Park is in large part three lanes with the inevitable pile ups where the three lanes narrow to two lanes, and often at bends.
There have been piecemeal developments meeting strong local needs at the Port Talbot bypass and the Morriston bypass which have served to relieve local congestion but have not fulfilled the primary function of linking West Wales as a whole to the national motorway network.
The section of the motorway immediately projected on both sides of Cardiff will, in the short term, serve only to increase congestion in Cardiff itself.
The basic problem remains. The journey from London to Newport, in the county of Gwent, which is 150 miles, takes two and a half hours by road. The journey from Newport to Swansea there-


after, which is 60 miles, takes one and a half hours by road. There is a glaring disproportion in journey times. A businessman from Swansea writing to me recently put the issue this way:
If I tell you of my own frustration of the drive from Swansea to Cardiff which has now deteriorated to a best of 55 minutes, and averaging by choosing the best times of the day to avoid steelworkers in Port Talbot coming and going, business traffic and heavy lorries between 6.45 a.m. and 9.00 a.m., and 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., still means 55 minutes to an hour and if you have to travel in the times I have quoted you can be anything up to an hour and a half for a journey of only 46 miles to the Eastern Bypass.
For those business men in West Wales who rely extensively on the proximity of Heathrow Airport for their international flight links, the journey time is crucial and far too long. Rhoose Airport, our local airport, has improved substantially, but there is still one hour's driving time to it to pick up European flights.
When the motorway is completed what will be the effect on West Wales as a whole? Swansea, already the regional capital of West Wales, will become even more the major service area for it. Completion will enable much speedier transfer between the steel works at Port Talbot and Velindre, which is vital for our steel industry. Again, separating regional from local traffic is likely to have a substantial effect on the local accident record, but most important is the enormous boost which the completion of the motorway will give to West Wales as an industrial area.
There is a danger in a Welsh context of having the relationship between the prosperous South-East of Wales and the rest of the Principality analogous to the danger of such a relationship between the prosperous South-East of England and the rest of England. At present Tredegar Park is the terminus in Wales, and that has both a physical and a psychological effect. Cardiff is regarded not only as the capital but as the centre of Wales. All good lines of communication currently end there.
British Rail boasts that when its new 125 mph trains come into operation next year they will cut 25 minutes off the journey time, but that is only the journey time for the link between London and Cardiff. The section between Cardiff and Swansea will benefit only indirectly.

Cardiff is not geographically central but is very much on the eastern periphery of Wales.
There are very important effects on industrial location. In its discussions in preparation for its county structure plan, West Glamorgan County Council has been impressed by the fact that access to a good transport network is a major factor in location decisions. It is a matter not just of speed and turn-round of traffic, but of a change of perception in the minds of those who take the location decision. The whole area seems to be brought much closer than was previously thought. It makes West Wales appear to be nearer. That part of Wales is the development area closest to the South-East of England. The completion of the M4 will buttress existing industry and make it more competitive. It will also provide the necessary infrastructure for attracting new industry, and I am thinking in particular of preparations for Celtic Sea oil developments. The potential for that development could be slowed down substantially unless there is a good through road to Pembroke.
I accept that the current projections about exploration for oil in the Celtic Sea are somewhat pessimistic. Yet, with increasing prices of oil and possible future OPEC embargoes, there is a clear national need for us to be geared up and prepared as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend might say what are the current assessments and projections within the Welsh Office for Celtic Sea oil development.
Many orders for modules for North Sea platforms are already going to our Continental competitors and to manufacturing units in Ireland. But the Motherwell Bridge Company at Swansea and Intep Limited at Pembroke Dock, a real success story, prove that South Wales is an area where this activity can be started from scratch. There are already two important offshore construction companies working in West Wales. There is plenty of business to be won in this field, attracted to South Wales by our skilled work force and good industrial relations.
I envisage a time when Swansea will be the capital of Celtic Sea oil development. The potential is enormous, but the major benefits to West Wales can be realised only when the links between Swansea and Newport, the remaining


sections of the motorway, are completed. Swansea and West Wales as a whole have been patient for far too long. We have put up with poor communications, and have achieved success in spite of them. I am delighted that the priorities of the Welsh Office are right and that the completion of the motorway will play a key rôle in the development of West Wales.

10.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for raising this important matter. I am conscious that he is keenly aware that the fortunes of his city in the years ahead are in great part dependent on the M4.
My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the M4 to the economy and to queries about the programming of the M4. He also raised matters to do with the Celtic Sea. I shall try to reply to those points briefly, and I hope to get on record information about the progress of the M4.
As to the potential economic benefits of the M4, I entirely agree that good roads are a catalyst to other regional measures. That is why my hon. Friend is battling so hard for his area. The M4 is a special case in point. It forms a vital part of the regional strategy that the Welsh Office is pursuing. It is an artery which, when completed, will run through the heart of industrial South Wales. There is no doubt that South Wales has a basically attractive position. With the M4, it is in a better position in relation to the Midlands and the South-East than any other development area.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the problems of his business man constituent and others. I noted what he said about the steel works and the importance of steel production in his part of the country. I accept his point about Heathrow Airport.
The Welsh Office sees the terminus of the M4 as Pont Abraham. We shall then improve the A48 and A40 to the west of St. Clears. The target completion date depends on the statutory procedures. I am sorry that I cannot go further than that at this stage. On completion of the motorway, we expect to

reduce the journey time from Newport to Swansea to less than an hour.
Let me emphasise, too, that in the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the completion of the M4 across South Wales is the prime objective of the Welsh road programme. We give it first priority, and that is despite the current financial stringency.
My hon. Friend mentioned oil. He has rightly stressed the importance of the M4 to Celtic Sea exploration. I entirely accept that, because the provision of good roads is vital both during the exploration stage for Celtic Sea oil and for its eventual exploitation. The Government are aware of the importance of this point. Indeed, it is but—although a very important one —of the many economic arguments that we have deployed in our Department—both in Government and in Opposition—for the M4, which is so essential for the economic health not only of West Wales but the whole of South Wales.
I want to give some details of progress on the M4. My hon. Friend may recollect that in July 1967 the M4 was extended only as far west as Tredegar Park. Today, the proposals for M4 extend as far west as Pont Abraham, in Dyfed.
With the opening of the Morriston bypass between Peniel Green and Llangyfelach in August 1972, the mileage of motorway in use increased from 23 miles to 27 miles and today there are a further 13 miles under construction. Work on the Pontardulais bypass, which started in August 1974, is expected to be finished by the end of 1976. There will then be 21 miles of continuous dual carriageway road between Groes, Margam and Pont Abraham, west of Pontardulais. This in itself will be a very worthwhile achievement in improving communications within the urban and industrial complex—an area my hon. Friend knows so well—comprising Port Talbot, Neath, Swansea and Llanelli.
I know that my hon. Friend is patriotic enough to see his city as a potential regional capital. Swansea, in particular, will benefit both from the M4 and from the recently completed Aberdulais-Llandarcy and Glyn Neath bypass sections of the A465 trunk road, to which the M4 and the A48 is connected. This latter route offers improved access via the Heads


of the Valleys Road to the Midlands and the North as well as offering an alternative route to the motorway system to London and the South-East.
A start of work has also been made this month on the first stage of the Pyle bypass, extending eastwards from Groes for a further four and a half miles to the vicinity of Pyle, which is now the worst remaining bottleneck on A48 west of Cardiff. Later this year it is planned to invite tenders also for the second stage of Pyle bypass, which will complete the section of new motorway between Stormy Down and Groes before the end of the 1977.
Earlier this month my right hon. and learned Friend—and he did have a victory in Cabinet—asked the South Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan County Councils, who are acting as his agents, to invite tenders for the length of motorway between the A470 at Coryton, Cardiff and Miskin and between Miskin and Pen-coed, from where access to the A48 can be regained by way of the A473 to the A48 at Waterton Cross, Bridgend. Provided acceptable tenders are received it is hoped that work on these sections will be started in September 1975 and be carried out in about two years.
My right hon. and learned Friend also expects to invite tenders in the near future for the length between Tredegar Park and the new Eastern Avenue—A48 —which connects with the A470 at Gabalfa, Cardiff, about two miles south of Coryton. Again, provided acceptable tenders are received, work should start before the end of the year.
We are very conscious of the feasibility schemes—to use that phrase—in relation to traffic congestion in various parts near our capital city. Towards the end of next year, as the demand on resources from the sections of M4 then under construction is expected to pass its peak, I hope that it will be possible to invite tenders for the Bridgend Northern Bypass between Pencoed and Stormy Down with a view to starting work in the spring of 1977. This section of M4 has had to be deferred in the present difficult financial circumstances, but I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that the length of A48 between Waterton Cross and Stormy Down is generally of a much higher standard than the

remainder of the A48 between Cardiff and Port Talbot. Construction of these sections will see the completion of a continuous dual carriageway, mainly motorway, road across South Wales from the Severn Bridge to Pont Abraham.
Only two lengths of the M4 will then remain uncompleted. Proposals for the line of the M4, Cardiff outer bypass between Castleton and Coryton were published in April 1974 and the inspector's report on the public inquiry into these orders is currently awaited. Until my right hon. and learned Friend has taken his decision on the route for this section and the remaining statutory procedures are completed, it is too early for me to say when a start on work could be made. Finally, there is the section between the end of the Port Talbot bypass at Baglan and the start of the Morriston bypass near Lonlas.
A public participation exercise seeking the views of the public on three feasible alternatives for the line of this section was held in November 1974. This exercise has given rise to considerable interest and discussion locally and the results are now being considered. My right hon. and learned Friend's decision on his choice of a preferred route will be announced as soon as possible so that the route he selects can be protected from development and investigated further with a view to the publication in due course of draft orders under the Highways Acts.

Mr. Anderson: I have heard nothing but praise in the Swansea area for this public participation exercise in democracy carried out by the Welsh Office.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The Department believes in these exercises.
I trust that the picture I have presented will dispel any notion of a leisurely approach toward the completion of the M4. When in opposition we recognised the need for an early extension of the M4 and, despite the unfavourable economic climate we inherited and the present need for retrenchment, it remains our aim to bring the remaining sections into use at the earliest possible moment.
Nevertheless, earlier difficulties in completing the statutory procedures, coupled with the very great increase in prices recently, have increased the demand which the M4 now makes on available resources; and this at a time when growth in the level of expenditure on highway projects must be contained. In these circumstances my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to give priority to the M4 only by severely curtailing expenditure over the next two years on other trunk road improvements. This curtailment includes the deferment of starts on all major schemes costing more than £1 million, with the exception of the Britannia Bridge crossing the Menai Straits. My hon. Friend might agree that this is a high price to pay.
The completion of the M4 is an illustration of the determination of the Government to tackle the persistent regional problems through the pursuance of a vigorous regional policy and improved infrastructure.I know that my hon.

Friend is interested in and keen on matters such as these. The M4 is an essential and highly relevant element in the removal of the basic causes of chronic unemployment. It will make available for the benefit of the national economy the reserves of labour and skill to be found in the South Wales development areas which have three quarters of the total population of the Principality.
In view of the interest which I know my hon. Friend is taking in this vitally urgent project I should, if he wishes, be pleased to arrange with my officials for him and other hon. Members to visit the works in progress at Pyle and Pontardulais. As for his remarks about accidents. I extend to him a welcome to study some of the maps and diagrams which are available to me in my Department.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.